Full text of "The advantage and necessity of the Christian revelation, shewn from the state of religion in the antient heathen world: especially with respect to the knowledge and worship of the one true god: a rule of moral duty: and a state of future rewards and punishments. To which is prefixed, a preliminary discourse on natural and revealed religion. In two volumes"

See other formats

^.t-—^

/I-^

I ALUMNI LIBRARY,

I theological' seminary,

* PRINCETON, N. J.

/ .iO/ jjfV vtV jJQ> jfl^ .aa'_AUi..:>>— ^^--^P^ jJV -sJ/ -vO- >fl/ vO/ vft. >n, vtv vfL. va,

I) Cast BT 1101 .L44 1818 v.l

\ She! Leland, John, 1691-1766.

h ... The advantage and

1^ ^^^^^ necessity of the Christian

e<^^QQ<^i

^^PM ^

.J' '

L.:

■■\ \

Joil^ ^.^^.j^i*-.^.^^ ^**a^ v^viyr

ADVANTAGE AND NECESSITY

OF THB

CHRISTIAN REVELATION,

SHEWIT FROM THB

STATE OF RELIGION

Ilf THE

ANTIENT HEATHEX WORLD:

ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE KNOWLEDGE AND WORSHIP OF THE

ONE TRUE GOD: A RULE OF MORAL DUTY: AND A STATE

OF FUTURE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS.

TO WHICH IS PREFIXED,

Ji Preliminary Discourse on JS*atural and
Eevealed Beligion.

IN TWO TOLUMES.

BY JOHN LELAND, D. D.

AUTHOR OF THE VIEW OF THE DEISTICAL WRITES, &o.

<W«VWWVVW

VOLUME L

VWVXi^VWVW

PHILADELPHIA:

PUBLISHED BY ANTHONY FINLEY,

AT THE N. E. CORNER OF CHESNUT AND FOURTH STREETS.

William Fry, Printer.

1818.

r s\\ P\ t \\ *;

TO THE

FIRST AMERICAN EDITION.

Dr. Leland's " Advantage and Necessity of the Christian
Revelation," and his " View of the Principal Deistical Writers,'*
have been much enquired for; and both, particularly the former,
very rarely to be procured. This circumstance, together with
their high reputation, induced the subscriber to undertake to

republish them The " View," as best known in this country,

should,* perhaps, have been the first reprinted; but, as there were
some few copies of it to be obtained and none of the present
work, it was deemed adviseable to give it the preference. — The
«< View" will shortly be put to press, and printed in a correspond-
ing form.

It is the intention of the subscriber, if encouraged by the sale
of these volumes, to proceed with the republication of a number
oi standard uorks of a similar nature.— In doing this he will use
every effort, by great typographical correctness, and general
elegance of execution, to avoid the complaints which are some-
times urged against American editions.

ANTHONY FINLEY.

Philadelfihia^ May 20th, 1818.

PREFACE,

As I am fully persuaded that the Christian Revelation,
considering the excellency of its doctrines, the parity of its
precepts, and the power of those motives whereby the prac-
tice of them is enforced, and especially its exceeding great
and precious promises, and the glorious and sublime hopes
which good men are thereby raised unto, is one of the
choicest gifts of heaven to mankind, so I think no man can
be better employed than in endeavouring to display its ad-
vantages to the world, and defend it against the opposition
of gainsayers. This is what I have honestly intended in
several books formerly published on that subject*; and
which, I trust, have not been altogether without their use.
It was however neither my intention nor inclination, consi-
dering my years and growing infirmities, to engage any
farther in this kind of service. But some personsf , to whose
judgment and authority I owe great deference, urged me
some time ago to review the books I had written, and out
of them to form a treatise in which the arguments in favour
of Revelation might be digested into a regular series, and
considered both separately and in their joint connection and

* Against Morgan, Tindal, Christianity not founded on Argu-
ment, &c. &c.

t Late Lord Bishop of London, Dr. Sherlockj Dr. Wilson,
Prebendary of Westminster; and others.

yi PREFACE.

harmony, together with a refutation of the principal ob-
jections. And that to make this the easier I might freely
make use of my own sentiments and expressions formerly
published, and transcribe them into this new work. Some
progress was made in this design, but after a while it was
laid aside. Fori could not satisfy myself to put a work upon
the public, which should be little more than an extract or
abridgment of what I had before published, though in ano-
ther form. As this however occasioned my turning my
thoughts again to the controversy between the Christians
and Deists, it gave rise to the following treatise. I found,
upon considering this subject, that the ablest of those who
have attempted to maintain the deistical cause in a way of
reason and argument (for T do not speak of those who have
contented themselves with some ill-placed jest and ridicule,
and with repeating stale and trifling objections which have
been frequently answered and exposed) have placed their
chief strength in asserting the absolute sufficiency of natu-
ral reason, left merely to its own force, without any higher
assistance, to answer all the purposes of religion and happi-
ness. They maintain that even the bulk of mankind need no
other or better guide; and particularly, that the common
reason implanted in all men does of itself make the clearest
discoveries of the imity, perfections, and attributes of God,
of his providence and government of the world, of the
whole of moral duty in its just extent, and of a future state
of retributions: that these which are the main articles in
which all religion principally consists, are naturally known
to all mankind; so that an extraordinary Revelation from
God is perfectly needless: and therefore we may justly con-
clude, that no such Revelation was ever given, since in that
case it could answer no valuable end at all. This indeed
would not follow. For if we should allow that those main
articles of what is usually called Natural Religion are what
all men are able clearly to discern of themselves, by their

PREFACE. vJi

own natural light, without instruction, yet since all that
make proper reflections upon iheir own state must be con-
scious that they have in many instances transgressed the
law of" God, and thereby exposed themselves to his just dis-
pleasure, they might still stand in great need of a Divine
Revelation, to instruct them upon what terms he is willing
to restore his offending creatures to his grace and favour,
and how far he will think fit to reward their sincere though
imperfect obedience. In this view a Revelation from God,
declaring the methods of his wisdom and love for our re-
covery, and his gracious purposes towards penitent return-
ing sinners, and publishing the glad tidings of pardon and
salvation upon such terms as he seeth fit to appoint and
require, would be an advantage we cannot be sufficiently
thankful for. But if besides this, it can be made to appear,
that mankind stand in great need of Divine Revelation to
guide and instruct them aright even in the main articles of
what is usually called Natural Religion, the cause of Deism,
as far as it can be formed into a consistent system, exclu-
sive of all Revelation, falls to the ground. I am very sensible
that they who take upon them the character of Deists, are far
from being agreed in those articles of religion, the clearness
of which, when arguing against the necessity or usefulness
of Divine Revelation, they affect mightily to extol: and that
there is too much reason to think, that one of the principal
sources of those prejudices many of them have entertained
against the Christian Revelation is its setting those princi-
ples, and their just and natural consequences, in too clear
and strong a light. But since, the better to carry on their
attacks against revealed Religion, they put on an appear-
ance of believing both the necessity and importance of those
principles, and their being universally obvious to all man-
kind, even to them that never had the benefit of Divine
Revelation; this led me to make an enquiry into the state of
Religion in the antient Heathen world, especially in those

viii PREFACE.

nations which are accounted to have been the most learned
and civilized, and among whom there were many persons
that made the highest pretensions to learning and philoso-
phy. This enquiry cost me a laborious search. For though
this subject has been treated of by others, and I have en-
deavoured to profit by their labours, yet I did not think
proper to rely entirely upon them, but, as far as I was able,
examined everv thing myself; and where, in a few instances,
I had not an opportunity of consulting the originals, but de-
pended upon the quotations made by others, I have refer-
red the reader to the authors from whom I took them.

The result of my enquiries is contained in the following
work; in which I first propose to represent the state of re-
ligion in the Gentile world, with respect to that which lies
at the foundation of all religion, the knowledge and worship
of the one true God, in opposition to idolatry and polythe-
ism. 2dly, To consider what notions they had of moral duty,
taken in its just extent: a thing of the highest importance to
mankind. 3dly, To take a view of the notions which obtain-
ed among them of a future state of rewards and punish-
ments; which is also a point of vast consequence to the
cause of religion and virtue in the world. Under these seve-
ral heads I do not pretend to argue from speculative hypo-
theses concerning the supposed powers of human nature; or
to affirm that it is not possible for any man, by the mere
force of his own reason, to attain to any rational persuasiou
of these things; but I proceed upon fact and experience,
which will help us to form the truest judgment in this mat-
ter, and will shew us what we are to expect from human
reason, if left merely to its own unassisted force, in the present
state of mankind. The enquiry is carried on to the time of
our Saviour's coming, and the issue of my researches, as far
as my own particular judgment and persuasion is concern-
ed, has been to produce in me a full conviction of the great
need mankind stood in of an extraordinary Divine Revela-

PREFACE. ix

tion, even with regard to those that are accounted the clear-
est as well as the most important articles of what is usually
called Natural Religion; and to inspire me with the highest
thankfulness to God for the Gospel Revelation, which has
set these things in the most glorious light. This is what I
have endeavoured to shew; and if what I shall offer on those
heads can be any way instrumental to excite the same sen-
timents and affections in others, and to heighten their es-
teem for the Christian Revelation as contained in the Holy
Scriptures, and to make them more careful to improve it to
the excellent purposes for which it was manifestly designed,
I shall not grudge the pains I have taken, but shall count
myself happier than any worldly advantages could make
me.

This work has grown upon my hands much beyond my
original intention. But when I was once engaged upon this
subject, I was not willing to treat it in a slight and superfi-
cial manner; and yet several things are laid aside which I
had prepared, and which would have enlarged it still more.
The materials of the first part were alone sufficient to fill a
large volume; and therefore I designed to publish it sepa-
rately. But some judicious friends were of opinion, that it
would be better to lay the whole before the public in one
view. This I have ventured to do, voluminous as it is, and
hope the importance of the subject, as well as the great ex-
tent of it, will be admitted as an apology. To the whole is
fixed a Preliminary Discourse on Natural and Revealed
Religion, which I believe will not be thought an improper
Introduction to a work of this nature.

In treating of the subject proposed, I have sometimes
found myself obliged to differ from persons for whose learn-
ing and judgment I have a great regard. And though I am
not conscious to myself of having made any wilful misrepre-
sentations of things, yet it is very probable that in the course

Vol. I. b

X PREFACE.

of so long a work I have committed mistakes, which will
need the indulgence of the reader.

As a book of this kind must unavoidably contain a great
number of quotations, I have not thought it necessary in
every instance to give the words in the original language,
though I have frequently done so; but have, to the best of
my ability, always given a faithful account of their sense.
Great care has been taken to make the references to the
quotations particular and exact, that any man who pleases
may the more easily have it in his power to examine and
compare them.

After I had brought the following work near to a conclu-
sion, I met with a book written by the late learned Dr.
Archibald Campbell, professor of divinity and ecclesiastical
history in the university of St. Andrews, which I had not
s^en before, intituled, '^ The Necessity of Revelation: or,
an Enquiry into the extent of Human Powers with respect
to Matters of Religion; especially those two fundamental
articles, the Being of God, and the Immortality of the
Soul;" published in 1739. As the design of this treatise
seemed in some measure to coincide with what I had in
view, I read it over with great care, and must do him the
justice to say, that he has treated his subject with great
learning and diligence. But the' method he makes use of is
so different from that which I have pursued, that the one
does not interfere with the other; nor has it occasioned any
alteration in the plan which I had formed. I have however
in several places added marginal notes referring to the
Doctor's book, either where I thought it contained a fuller
illustration of what I have more briefly hinted at, or where,
as sometimes has been the case, I happened to diff'er from
that learned writer.

Not to detain the reader any longer, the plan of the fol-
lowing work is briefly this:

That there was an original Revelation communicated to
mankind in the earliest ages, for leading them to the know-

PREFACE. Xi

ledge of God and Religion, some vestiges of which con-
tinued long among the nations: that in process of time,
through the negligence and corruption of mankind, Reli-
gion in its main articles, and particularly in what related to
the knowledge and worship of the One true God, became
in a great measure defaced, and overwhelmed with the
grossest superstitions and idolatries: that this was the state
of things even in the most polite and civilized nations, and
all the aids of learning and philosophy were ineffectual and
vain; that therefore there was great need of a new Divine
Revelation from heaven, to set the great principles of reli-
gion in the most clear and convincing light, and to enforce
them upon mankind by a Divine authority in a manner
suited to their vast importance: that accordingly it pleased
God to do this by the Christian Revelation, which was fit-
ted and designed to be published to all mankind, and was
accompanied with all the evidences of a Divine original
which were proper to procure its reception in the world:
that to prepare the way for this, there had been an extraor-
dinary Revelation several ages before, which though imme-
diately promulgated to a particular people, was in several
respects of use to other nations, for checking the progress
of idolatry and polytheism, and preserving the knowledge
and worship of the One true God in the world, when it
seemed in danger of being extinguished.

From all which it appears, that God never left himself
without witness among men: that his dispensations towards
mankind have been conducted with great wisdom, righte-
ousness^ and goodness: and that we, who by the favour of
God enjoy the benefit of the last and most perfect Revela-
tion of the Divine Will which was ever made to mankind,
are under the highest obligations to receive it with the pro-
foundest veneration, with the most unfeigned g:atitudeand
thankful admiration of the Divine Goodness, and to endea-
vour to make the best use and improvement of it.

CONTENTS

OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

AN INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE, IN TWO SECTIONS.

Sect. I. Of Natural Religion. Page 2.

Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion. ' 13.

CHAPTER I.

Man, in his original constitution, and the design of his Creator, a religious crea-
ture. Not left at his first formation to work out a scheme of religion for him-
self. It is reasonable to sut)pose, and confirmed by the most antient accounts,
that the knowledge of religion was communicated to the first parents of the
human race by a Revelation from God, and from them derived to their descen-
dants. God made farther discoveries of his will td Noah, the second father of
mankind. Tradition the chief way of conveying the knowledge of religion in
those early ages. Page 39.

CHAPTER II.

The first religion of mankind was not idolatry, but the knowledge and worship
of the one true God. Some vestiges of which may be traced up to the most an-
tient times. A tradition of the creation of the world continued long among the
nations. The notion of one Supreme God was neverentirely extinguished in
the Pagan world; but his true worship was ia a great measure lost and con-
founded amidst a multiplicity of idol deities. Page 02.

CHAPTER m.

The first corruption of religion, and deviation from the knowledge and wwship
of the one true God, was the worship of heaven and the heavenly bodies. This
the most antient kind of idolatry. It began very early, and spread very gene-
rally among the Heathen nations. . ^^S^ ^^-

xiv CONTENTS.

CHAPTER IV.

The worship of deified men and heroes another species of idolatry of an antient
date, and which obtained very early in the Pagan world. Most of the principal
objects of the Heathen \\orship, the Dii majoium Gentium, had been once
dead men. The names and pecuhar attributes originally belonging to the one
Supreme God applied to them, particularly to Jupiter; to whom at tht same
time were ascribed the most criminal actions. Jupiter Capitolinus, the prin-
cipal object of worship among the antient Romans, not the one true God, but
the chief of the Pagan divinities. The pretence, that the Pagan polytheism was
only the worshipping one true God under various names and mamfest.itions,
examined and shewn to be insufficient. The different names and titles of God
erected into different deities. Page 99.

CHAPTER V.

Farther progress of the Heathen polytheism. The symbols and images of the
Gods turned into Gods themselves. The Physiology of the Pagans another
source of idolatry. They made Gods and Goddesses of the things of nature,
and parts of the universe, and of whatsoever was useful to mankind. The qua-
lities and affections of the mind, and accidents of life, and even evil qualities
and accidents were deified, and had divine honours rendered to them. The
most refined Pagans agreed, according to Dr. Cudworth, in crumbling the
Deity into several parts, and multiplying it into many gods. They supposed
God to be in a manner all things, and therefore to be worshipped in every
thing. Divine honours were paid to evil beings acknowledged to be such. The
Egyptian idolatry considered. Page 128.

CHAPTER Vr.

'the Pagan theology distributed by Varro into three different kinds: the poetical
or fabulous, the civil, and the philosophical. The poetical or fabulous theology
considered. The pretence, that we ought not to judge of the Pagan religion
by the poetical mythology, examined. It is shewn, that the popular religion '
and worship was in a great measure founded upon that mythology, which
ran through the whole of their rehgion, and was of great authority with the
people. Page 143.

CHAPTER VII.

The civil theology of the Pagans considered. That of the antient Romans has
been much commended, yet became in process of time little less absurd than
the poetical, and in many instances was closely connected and complicated
with it. The pernicious consequences of this to religion and morals. Some ac-
count of the absurd and immoral rites which were antiently practised in the

CONTENTS. XV

mcjst civilized nations, and which made a part of their religion; being either
prescribed by the laws, or established by customs which had the force of laws.
The politicians and civil magistrates took no effectual methods to rectify
this, but rather countenanced and abetted the popular superstition and
i^^olatry. Pag^ 153^

CHAPTER VITI.

The Pagan mysteries have been highly extolled, as an expedient provided by
the civil authority, both for leading the people to the practice of virtue, and
for convincing them of the vanity of the common idolatry and polytheism. The
tendency of the mysteries to purify the soul, and raise men to the perfectioa
of virtue, examined. At best they were only designed to promote the practice
of those virtues which were most useful to society, and to deter men from such
vices as were most pernicious to it. In process of time they became greatly
corrupted, and had a bad effect on the morals of the people. The pretence,
that the mysteries were intended to detect the error of the vulgar polytheism,
and to bring men to the acknowledgment and adoration of the one true
God, distinctly considered: and the proofs brought for it shewn to be in-
sufficient. Page 182.

CHAPTER IX.

Some farther considerations to shew, that the design of the mysteries was not to
detect the errors of the Pagan polytheism. The legislators and magistrates
who instituted and conducted the mysteries, were themselves the chief promo-
ters of the popular polytheism from political views, and therefore it is impro-
bable that they intended secretly to subvert it by the mysteries. Their scheme
upon such a supposition absurd and inconsistent. The mysteries were, in fact,
of no advantage for reclaiming the Heathens from their idolatries. The primi-
tive Christians not to be blamed for the bad opinion they had of the Paga«
mysteries. Page 211.

CHAPTER X.

The philosophical Theology of the antient Pagans considered. High encomiums
bestowed upon the Pagan philosophy. Yet it was of little use for leading th«
people into a right knowledge of God and religion, and for reclaiming them
from their idolatry and polytheism. This shewn from several considerations.
And first, if the philosophers had been right in their own notions of religion,
they could have but small influence on the people, for want of a proper autho-
rity to enforce their instructions. f^S^ 227.

xvi CONTENTS-

CHAPTER XI.

The affected obscurity of the Pagan philosophers another cause which rendered
them unfit to instruct the people in religion. Instead of clearly explaining their
senUments on the most im,)ortant subjerts, they carefully concealed them
from the vulgar. To which it may be added, that some of them used their ut-
most efforts to destroy ail certainty and evidence, arid to unsettle men's minds
as to the belief of the fundamental principles of all religion: and even the best
and greatest of them acknowledged the darkness and uncertainty they v ere
under, especially in divine matters. Page 235.

CHAPTER Xn.

The fourth general consideration. The philosophers unfit to instruct the people
in. religion, because they themselves were for the most part veiy wrong in
their own notions of the Divinity. They were the gieat corrupters of the an-
tient tradition relating to the one true (lod and the creation of the world.
Many of those who professed to search into the origin of the world, and the
formation of things, endeavoured to account for it without the interposition of
a Deity. The opinions of those philosophers who were of a nobler kind consi-
dered. It is shewn, that they were chargeable with great defects, and no way
proper to reclaim the nations from their idolatry and polytheism. Page 247.

CHAPTER XIII.

Further proofs of the wrong sentiments of the antient philosophers in relation itt
the Divinity. Plutarch's opinion; and which he represents as having been very
general among the antients, concerning two eternal principles, the one good,
the other evil. Those philosophers who taught that the world was formed and
brought into its present order by God, yet held the eternity of matter; and few
if any of them believed God to be the Creator of the weild in the proper sense.
Many of tliem, especially after the time of Aristotle, maintained the eternity
of the world in its present form. It was an established notion among the most
celebrated philosophers, and which spread generally among the learned Pa-
gans, that God is the soul of the world, and that the whole animated system,
of the world is God. The pernicious consequence of this notion shewn^
and the use that was made of it for encouraging and promoting idolatry and
IHjIy theism. Page 275

CHAPTER XIV.

The greatest and best of the antient Pagan philosophers generally expressed
themselves in the polytheistic strain; and, instead of leading the people to the
one true God, they spoke of a plurality of gods, even in their most serious dis-

CONTENTS. xvii

courses. They ascribed those works to the gods, and directed those duties to
be rendered to them, which properly belong to the Supreme. Page 298.

CHAPTER XV.

Some farther considerations to shew how little w as to be expected from the phi-
losophers for recovering the Pagans from their polytheism and idolatry. They
referred the people for instruction in divine matters to the oracles, which were
managed by the priests. This shewn particularly concerning Socrates, Plato,
and the Stoics. It was an universal maxim among them, That it was the duty
of every wise and good man to conform to the religion of his country. And not
only did they worship the gods of their respective countries, according to the
established rites, and exhort others to do so, but when they themselves took
upon them the character of legislators, and drew up plans of laws and of the
best forms of government, not the worship of the one true God, but polytheism,
was the religion they proposed to establish. Page 318.

CHAPTER XVr.

Farther proofs of the philosophers countenancing and encouraging the popular
idolatry and polytheism. They employed their learning and abilities to defend
and justify it. The worship of inferior deities was recommended by them under
pretence that it tended to the honour of the Supreme. Some of the most emi-
nent of them endeavoured to colour over the absurd est part of the Pagan
poetic theology by allegorizing the most indecent fables. They even apologiz-
ed for the Egv'ptian animal worship, which the generality of the vulgar Pagans
in other nations ridiculed. Their plea for idolatry and image-worship as neces-
sary to keep the people from falling into irreligion and atheism. Some of the
most refined philosophers were against any external worship of the Supreme
God. Page 332.

CHAPTER XVn.

The state of the Heathen world with respect to their notions of Divine Provi^
dence. The belief of a Providence superintending human affairs obtained gene-
rally among the vulgar Pagans: but the Providence they acknowledged was
parcelled out among a multiplicity of gods and goddesses. Their notions of Pro-
vidence were also in other respects very imperfect and confused. The doctrine
of the philosophers concerning Providence considered. Many of them, and of
the learned and polite Pagans, denied a Providence. Of those who professed to
acknowledge it, some confined it to heaven and heavenly things. Others sup-
posed it to extend to the earth and to mankind, yet so as only to exercise a
general care and superintendency, but not to extend to individuals. Others
supposed all things, the least as well as the greatest, to be under the care of
Providence: but they ascribed this not to the Supreme God, wlio thev thought

Vol. I. c

xviii CONTENTS.

was above concerning himself with such things as these, and committed the
care of them wholly to inferior deities. The great advantage of Revelation
shewn for instiiicting men in the doctrine of Providence: and the noble idea
given of it in the Holy Scriptures. Page 343.

CHAPTER XVni.

General reflections on the foregoing account of the religion of the antient Pa-
gans. The first reflection is this: that the representations made to us in Scrip-
ture of the deplorable state of religion among the Gentiles are literally true,
and agreeable to fact, and are confirmed by the undoubted monuments of Pa-
ganism. The attempts of some learned men to explain away those representa-
tions considered, and shewn to be vain and insufiicient. Page S70.

CHAPTER XIX.

A second general reflection. The corruption of religion in the Heathen world is
DO just objection against the wisdom and goodness of Divine Providence. God
did not leave himself without witness amongst them. They had for a long time
some remains of antient tradition originally derived from Revelation. Besides
•which, they had the standing evidences of a Deity in his wonderful works.
The Jewish Revelation was originally designed to give a check to the growing
idolatry, and had a tendency to spread the knowledge and worship of the one
true God among the nations: and it actually had that effect in many instances.
If the generality of the Pagans made no use of these advantages, but still per-
sisted in their idolatry and polytheism, the fault is not to be charged upon God,
but upon themselves. Page 394.

CHAPTER XX.

A third general reflection. Idolatry gathered strength among the nations, as they
grew in learning and politeness Religion in several respects less corrupted in
the ruder and more illiterate than in the politer ages. The arts and sciences
made a very gi-eat progress in the Heathen world: yet thty still became more
and more addicted to the most absurd idolatries, as well as to the most abomi-
nable vices; both of which were at the height at the time of our Saviour*s ap-
pearance. Page 414.

CHAPTER XXI.

A fourth general reflection. Human wisdom and philosophy, without a higher
assistance, insufi^icient for recovering mankind from their idolatry and poly-
theism, and for leading them into the right know ledge of God and religion, and
the worship due to him. No remeily was to be expected in an ordinary way,
either from the philosophers or from the priests, or from the civil magistrates.

CONTENTS. xix

Nothing less than an extraordinaiy Revelation from God could, as things were
circumstanced, prove an effectual remedy. The wisest men in the Heathen
world were sensible of their own darkness and ignorance in the things of God,
and of their need of Divine Revelation. Page 424.

CHAPTER XXn.

The fifth and last general reflection. The Christian Revelation suited to the ne-
cessities of mankind. The glorious change it wrought in the face of things, and
in the state of religion in the world; yet accomplished by the seemingly meanest
instruments, in opposition to the greatest difficulties. It was given in the fittest
season, and attended with the most convincing evidences of a divine original.
How thankful should we be for the salutary light it brings, and how careful
to improve it! What an advantage it is to have the Holy Scriptures in our
hands, and the necessity there is of keeping close to the sacred rule there set
before us, in order to the preserving the Christian Religion in its purity and
simplicity. Page 435.

INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE

CONCERNING

J\'ATVBJ1L JUS'S REVEJILEI) RELIGIOJS'.

IvELIGION, in its true notion, necessarily supposes and
includes an intercourse between God and Man: i. e, on
God's part discoveries and manifestations of himself and
his perfections, and of his will with regard to the duties he
requireth: and on man's part a capacity and readiness to re-
ceive and improve those discoveries, and to conform to all
the significations of the divine will. For it is an undeniable
principle, that whatsoever plainly appeareth to be the mind
and will of Gcfd, in whatever way we come to know it, we
are> indispensably obliged to observe. And there are two
ways by which God may be supposed to manifest himself
and his will to mankind, by his Works and by his Word.

Accordingly Religion has been usually distributed into
Natural and Revealed. These are not two essentially dif-
ferent religions, much less contrary or contradictory to one
another: for as both are supposed to come from God, who
is truth itself, there must be a harmony between them: nor
yet are they entirely the same, and only differing in the
manner of communication. For though all true Revealed
Religion must be really consistent with, and contain nothing
contrary to, the clear light of Nature and Reason, yet it
may discover and reveal several things relative to Truth
and Duty, which that Light, if left to itself, could not have

Vol. I. A

2 Introductory Discourse. Sect. I.

discovered at all, or not with sufficient clearness and cer-
tainty. These, therefore, are not to be set in opposition: nor
is the one of them designed to exclude the other. And, in
fact, God manifested himself in both these ways from the
beginning,* so that it may, with the greatest justness and pro-
priety, be said, that he hath never left himself without wit-
ness among men. Happy would it have been for them, if
they had been careful to make a right use and improvement
of those discoveries!

SECTION I.

OF NATURAL RELIGION.

The word Natural Religion has been taken in various
acceptations. Some, by Natural Religion, understand every
thing in religion, with regard to truth and duty, which,
when once discovered, may be clearly shewn to have a real
foundation in the nature and relations of things, and which
unprejudiced reason will approve, when fairly proposed and
set in a proper light. And accordingly very fair and goodly
schemes of Natural Religion have been drawn up by Chris-
tian Philosophers and Divines, in which they have compre-
hended a considerable part of what is contained in the Scrip-
ture Revelation: e. g", the important truths and principles
relating to the existence, the unity, the perfections, and at-
tributes of God, his governing providence and moral admi-
nistration, the worship that is due to him, the law that is
given to mankind, or the whole of moral duty in its just ex-
tent as relating to God, our neighbours, and ourselves, the
rewards and punishments of a future state, and other arti-
cles nearly connected with these, or dependent upon them.
And after having taken great pains to shew that all this is
perfectly agreeable to sound reason, and founded in the na^

Sect. L Of Natural Religion. 9

ture of things, they have honoured the whole with the name
of Natural Religion. It cannot be denied, that it is a real
and great service to Religion, to shew that the main princi-
ples and duties of it are what right reason must approve.
And no small praise is certainly due to those, who have set
themselves to demonstrate this with great clearness and
force of argument.

But it does not follow, that because these things, when
once clearly discovered, may be proved to be agreeable to
reason, and to have a real foundation in the nature of things,
that therefore Reason alone, in the present state of man-
kind, if left to itself, without higher assistance, would mere-
ly, by its own force, have discovered all these things with
their genuine consequences, and have applied them to their
proper uses, for directing men in the true knowledge and
practice of Religion. It is a just observation of that great
man Mr. Locke, That " a great many things which we
have been bred up in the belief of from our cradles (and
are notions grown familiar, and, as it were, natural to us
under the Gospel) we take for unquestionable truths, and
easily demonstrable, without considering how long we might
have been in doubt or ignorance of them, had Revelation
been silent («)." And he had said before, that " every one
may observe a great many truths, which he receives at first
from others, and readily affirms to be consonant to reason,
which he would have found it hard, and perhaps beyond
his strength, to have discovered himself. Native and ori-
ginal truth is not so easily wrought out of the mine, as we
who have it ready dug and fashioned to our hands, are apt
to imagine (^)." To the same purpose the learned Dr.
Clarke observes, that " it is one thing to see, that these

(a) Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity, in his works, Vol.
II. p. 535. ed. 3.
{b) Ibid. p. 532.

4 Introductory Discourse. Sect. I.

rules of life, which are beforehand plainly and particularly-
laid before us, are perfectly agreeable to reason, and another
thing to find out these rules merely by the light of rea-
son, without their having been first any otherwise made
known (c)/' Accordingly some able and strenuous asserters
of Natural Religion or the law of nature, though they con-
tend that it is founded in the nature of things, and agree-
able to right reason, yet derive the original promulgation
of it from divine Revelation. Puffendorf observes, that " it
is very probable that God taught the first men the chief
heads of natural law, which were afterwards preserved and
spread among their descendants by means of education and
custom: yet this does not hinder, but that the knowledge of
these laws may be called natural, inasmuch as the truth and
certainty of th'em may be discovered in a way of reasoning,
and in the use of that reason which is natural to all men."
PufFend. de Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. II. c. iii. sect. 20. Ac-
cording to this account. Natural Religion or the law of na-
ture is not so called because it was originally discovered by
natural reason, but because, when once made known, it is
what the reason of mankind, duly exercised, approves, as
founded in truth and nature.

Natural Religion, in the sense now explained, is very
consistent with the supposition of an extraordinary divine
Revelation, both to discover and promulgate it at first, and
to re-establish and confirm it, when, through the corrup-
tion of mankind, the important principles and duties of it
were fallen into such darkness and obscurity, and so con-
founded with pernicious errors and obscure mixtures, that
there needed an extraordinary assistance to recover men to
the right knowledge and practice of it.

Sect. I. Of Natural Religion, 5

There are others who take Natural Religion in a sense
which is absolutely exclusive of all extraordinary Revela-
tion, and in direct opposition to it. By Natural Religion
they understand that Religion which men discover in the
sole exercise of their natural faculties and powers, without
any other or higher assistance. And they discard all pre-
tences to extraordinary Revelation, as the effects of enthu-
siasm or imposture. It is in this sense, that those who call
themselves Deists understand Natural Religion, which they
highly extol as the only true Religion, the only discovery
of truth and duty which can be safely depended upon; and
which comprehends the whole of what is necessary to be
known and done, in order to the obtaining the favour of God,
and attaining true happiness. But they who take Natural
Religion in this sense are not entirely agreed in their
scheme.

The ablest advocates for Natural Religion, as opposed to
Revelation, assert it to be perfectly clear and obvious to the
whole human race, and that it is what all men have a na-
tural knowledge of. They argue, that since Religion equally
concerneth all mankind, the wisdom and goodness of God
require that it should be actually known to all. That since
God has given the brutes natural instincts, which guide
them certainly and infallibly to answer the proper end of
their being, much more must it be supposed that he hath
furnished all men with infallible means to direct them to
Religion and Happiness. Thus it is that Lord Herbert fre-
quently argues; and on this foundation it is that he asserts,
that God hath imprinted on the minds of all men innate
ideas of the main principles of Religion and Morality. And
Dr. Tindal frequently represents it, as if there was a clear
universal light shining into the minds of all men, and disco-
vering to them the whole of what is necessary for them to
know, believe, and practise; and which cannot be made
clearer to any man by an external extraordinary Revela-

9 Introductory Discourse* Sect. I.

tion, than it is naturally to all men without it. This is the
principle which lies at the foundation of his celebrated
book, intituled, " Christianity as old as the Creation," and
which runs through the whole of that boasted performance.
And it is, indeed, the only principle on which the scheme
of those gentlemen, who pretend that an extraordinary Re-
velation is absolutely needless and useless, can be consist-
ently supported. This last mentioned author often talks as
if what is called the law, or Religion of Nature, was a per-
fect scheme of Religion and Morality, fairly drawn on the
mind and heart of every man, in such a manner, that it is not
possible for any man to mistake it. And he carries it so far
as to affirm, that even the most illiterate of the human race,
and who cannot so much as read in their mother tongue,
have naturally and necessarily a clear and intimate percep-
tion of the whole of Religion and their duty. And it will
be easily owned, that there is no need of an extraordinary
Revelation to teach men what they all naturally and neces-
sarily know. Nor, indeed, upon that supposition, is there
the least need of instructions of any kind, whether by word
or writing: and the best way would be (as this gentleman
himself sometimes intimates) to leave all men entirely to
themselves, and to the pure simple dictates of nature. This
way of talking may, perhaps, appear fair and plausible in
speculation. It seems to make a beautiful representation of
the dignity of our species, and of the universal goodness of
God to the whole human race. But, when brought to the
test of fact and experience, it appears to be a visionary-
scheme, no way answering to the truth and reality of the
case in the present state of human nature. And one would
be apt to wonder, how such a representation could be made
to pass upon any man, that has the least knowledge of the
world, or of the history of mankind. It supposes Religion,
in its true nature and in its just extent, to be naturally-
known to all men; so that they cannot mistake it: and yet

Sect. I. Of Natural Religion. 7

nothing is more certain and undeniable, from the history of
mankind in all ages, than that they have mistaken it in its
important principles and obligations: and that, in order to
their having a right sense and discernment of those princi-
ples and obligations, they stand in great need of particular
instruction and information. It is evident in fact, that where
no care is taken to instruct men, they have scarce any no-
tion of Religion at all, but are sunk into the grossest igno-
rance and barbarism: and accordingly the wisest men in all
ages have been sensible of the great advantage and necessity
of education and instruction. Plutarch, in his treatise De
liberis educand. goes so far as to affirm, that "Nature,
without learning or instruction, is a blind thing;" tJ ^h (pCru
ttnv fAecH(riui rv(pxh(d). And, in his treatise De Auditione,
he says, " Vice can have access to the soul through many
parts of the body, but Virtue can lay hold of a young man
only by his ears (^)," by which he receives instruction.
Plato, in his sixth book of laws, after having said, that
man, if, with a good natural disposition, he happens to have
the advantage of right instruction and education, becomes a
most divine and gentle animal, adds, that, if he be not suf-
ficiently or properly educated, he is the wildest and most
untractable of all earthly animals, ay^idreclcv ^oa-ec (pvH yH (y).
The philosophers frequently complain of the ignorance and
stupidity of the generality of mankind: and this even when
they speak of the people of Athens and Rome, who were
undoubtedly the most knowing and civilized among the
heathen nations. And they would certainly have thought it
a very strange hypothesis to suppose, that every man, even
the meanest of the vulgar, is naturally so knowing in reli-

(d) Plutarch Oper. Tome II. p. 2. B. Edit. Francof. 1620.

(e) Ibid. p. 38. A.

(/) Plat. Oper. p. 619. D. Edit. Ficin. Lugd. 1590.

8 Introductory Discourse, Sect. I.

gion and morals, as to stand in no need of farther instruc-
tion either from God or man. {g)

Sensible of the inconveniencies of this scheme, others, by
Natural Religion, understand not merely that which is na-
turally and necessarily known to all men, but that which
Reason, duly exercised and improved, is able, by its own
natural force, to discover, without the assistance of extra-
ordinary Revelation. And as to this, it is a question not
easy to be resolved, what is the utmost possibility of human
reason, or how far our natural faculties, without any high-
er assistance, may possibly carry us, when raised to the
highest degree of improvement of which they are naturally
capable. Nor is it a question of much use: since there are
many things, which cannot be said to be absolutely above
the reach of human capacity, which yet very few of the
human race would ever come to know without particular
information. The present question, as far as Natural Reli-
gion is concerned in it, is, how far the bulk of mankind,
taking them as they are in the present state of the world,
and of human nature, immersed in flesh and sense, with all
their appetites and passions about them, and amidst the
many avocations, businesses, and cares in which th'ey are
involved, can ordinarily arrive in matters of Religion, by
the mere force of their own natural powers, without any
farther assistance or instruction: If we should suppose that
some persons of strong reason and extraordinary judgment
and sagacity, were capable, by the mere force of their own
reason and studious researches, to make out for themselves
a system of Religion and Morals in all its main principles
and duties, yet this would not reach the case of the genera-

^ (jg) I have elsewhere more largely shewn the absurdity of
this scheme, jinswer to Christianity as old as the Creation^ ,vol.
I. especially chap. v. See also the View of the Deistical Writers,
yd. I. p. 49, et seq. edit. 3.

Sect. I. Of Natural Religion. 9

lity of mankind who have neither capacity, nor leisure, nor
inclination for profound enquiries. Nor could these wise
men pretend to a sufficient authority for imposing their own
sentiments as laws to mankind. Or, jf the people should
be brought to pay an implicit regard to their dictates, here
would a way be opened for what those gentlemen, who set
up for the Patrons of Natural Religion in opposition to Re-
velation, so much dread, priestcraft, and the impositions of
designing men (Ji).

Qi) It may not be amiss here to produce the acknowledgment
of an ingenious author who cannot be suspected of being pre-
judiced in favour of Revelation, and has taken pains to convince
the world of the contrary. •' They," sailh he, *' who would judge
uprightly of the strength of human reason in matters of morality
and relis:ion, under the present corrupt and degenerate state
of mankind, ought to take their estimate from those parts of
the world, which never had the benefit of Revelation: and this,
perhaps, may make them less conceited of themselves, and
more thankful to God for the light of the Gospel." He asks, " If
the religion of nature, under the present depravity and corrupt-
tion of mankind, was written with sufficient strength and clear-
ness upon every man's heart, why might not a Chinese or
Indian draw up as good a system of Natural Religion as a Chris-
tian, and why have we never met with any such?" And he adds,
"let us take Confucius, Zoroaster, Plato, Socrates, or the great-
est moralist that ever lived without the light of Revelation, and
it will appear, that their best systems of morality were intcrn)ix-
cd and blended with much superstition, and so many gross ab-
surdities as quite eluded and defeated the main design of them."
The same author observes, that " at the time of Christ's commg
into the world, mankind in general were in a state of gross ic:no-
rance and darkness with respect to the true knovvled^e of God,
and of themselves, andof all those moral reladons and obliga-
tions we stand in to the Supreme Being, and to one another."
That ^* they were under great uncertainties concerning a future
state, and the concern of divine Providence in the g'ivernojent
«f the world" — That « our Saviour's doctrines on these heads,

Vol. I. B

10 Introductory Discourse* SioT. !•

But without entering into a nice speculative disquisition,
concerning the powers and abilities of human reason in mat-
ters of Religion, independent of all Revelation, the surest and
plainest way of judging is from fact and experience. It is
therefore of great moment, for the decision of this point,
to enquire what it is that human reason hath actually done
this way, when left merely to its own force, without any ex-
traordinary assistance (i). And this cannot be judged of
from any systems formed by persons that live in ages and
countries, which have enjoyed the light of Divine Revela-
tion, and where its discoveries, doctrines, and laws have
been received and entertained; since in this case it may
reasonably be supposed, that they have borrowed light from
Revelation, though they are not willing to acknowledge it,
or may not themselves be sensible of it. And there-
fore systems drawn up by our modern admirers of Na-
tural Religion in Christian countries, cannot be brought in

though they be true and genuine dictates of nature and reason,
when he had set them in a proper light, yet were such as the
people never would have known without such an instructor, and
such means and opportunities of knowledge." And that it doth
not follow, that, " because these are natural truths, and moral
obligations, therefore there could be no need of Revelation to
discover them; as the books of Euclid and Newton's Principia
contain natural truths, and such as are necessarily founded in the
reason of things, and yet none but a fool or a madman would
say, that he could have informed himself in these matters as well
as without them." Dr. Morgan's Moral Philosopher, vol. I. p.
143, 144, 145.

(0 A very learned writer, who will not allow that any single
person of the human race ever, in fact, arrived at the right
knowledge of God, merely by the natural exercise of his own
rational powers, without foreign instruction and assistance, yet
does not carry it so far as to afBrm, that it is not possible for
any man to do so. He observes, thati " in examining how far

Sect. I. Qf Natural Religion. 11

proof of the force of unassisted Reason in matters of Re-
ligion. And the same may be said of those Pagan philo-
sophers who lived after Christianity had made some pro-
gress in the world.

Nor can the sufficiency of the light of Natural Reason
left merely to itself, without the aids of Revelation, be regu-
larly argued from the systems of the antient philosophers,
lawgivers, and moralists, who lived before the Christian Re-
velation was published; except it can be shewn, that they
themselves derived the religious and moral principles which
they taught, solely and entirely from the researches and
disquisitions of their own Reason, and disclaimed their hav-
ing had any assistance, with regard to those truths and prin-
ciples, from tradition or divine instruction. And it is no hard
matter to shew by testimonies from the most celebrated an-
tients, than this was not the case, nor was it what they as-
sumed to themselves. It is a thing well known, that the
most admired philosophers of Greece did not pretend to set
up merely on their own stock, but travelled into Egypt, and
different parts of the East, to improve their knowledge by
conversation with the sages of those countries; who them-

mankind are able, of themselves, to extend their knowledge of
religious matters, we must all along mean the bulk of mankind,
and only regard the common powers of human nature, as they
may, possibly, be employed and exerted by the individuals of
our species in the common circumstances of human life: so that
although one man, or some few men, is this or that age or place
of the world, should happen, by some lucky juncture, from one
step to another, to come at length to shew themselves able to
discover the Being and perfections of God, the immortality of
the soul, and other articles of Natural Religion, yet this uncom-
mon event can never be accounted a fair standard, whereby to
judge of the common powers and abilities of the bulk of man-
kind" Campbell's Necessity of Revelation, p., 64. He express-
es himself to the same purpose, p, 66 and 72,

12 Introductory Discourse. Sect. I

selves professed to have derived their knowledge, not merely
from the disquisitions of their own Reason, but from a high-
er source, from very antient traditions, to which for the
most part they assigned a divine original. And indeed, sup-
posing an original Revelation to have been communicated
to the first parents and ancestors of the human race, which (I
shall shew) there is -great reason to believe, the most con-
siderable vestiges of it were to be expected in the Eastern
nations, which lay nearest to the seat of the first men; and
from which the rest of the world had their knowledge of
Religion and Letters. To this it may be added, that the
most celebrated and sagacious of the antient philosophers
made pathetical complaints of human darkness and igno-
rance, and the great difficulties they met with in searching
after truth. Many of them were sensible of the great need
there was of a divine instruction and assistance, for enlight-
ening ?nd directing mankind in matters of Religion and their
duty (/^). So that no argument can be justly drawn from
the wise men and philosophers among the antients, to shew
that the knowledge of what is usually called Natural Reli-
gion, in its just extent, is wholly and originally owing to the
force of human Reason, exclusive of all Divine Revelation.
And perhaps it would not be easy to mention any nations,
among whom any true knowledge of Religion has been pre-
served, concerning which we can be assured, that they never
had any benefit from the light of Divine Revelation; and
that the principles of religious truth and duty, which were
to be found among them, were originally the mere product
of natural Reason, without any higher assistance. Several
things may be observed amongst them, which seem to be

{k) This is particularly shewn in Dr. Clarke's Discourse of
Natural and Revealed Religion, p. 304, et seq. and in Dr. Ellis's
« KnowledJ2:e of divine things from Revelation, not from Na-
ture or Reason."

Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion. 13

the remains of an antient universal tradition, or primaeval
Religion, derived from the remotest antiquity, and which,
probably, had their original source in Divine Revelation,
though, in process of time, it was greatly altered and cor-
rupted. This is only mentioned here, but will be more fully
considered in the sequel of this treatise.

SECTION II.

OF REVEALED RELIGION.

By Revealed Religion is commonly understood that
knowledge of Religion, which was originally communicated
from God to men in a way of extraordinary Revelation, for
instructing them in important religious truth, and directing
and engaging them to the practice of their duty. In a gene-
ral sense, all truth, and the manifestation of it, may be said
to come from God, even that which we discover in the or-
dinary use of those rational faculties which he hath given
us. Bat when we speak of Revealed Religion, as distin-
guished from that which is usually called Natural, it is to
be understood of that knowledge of Religion, which was
originally communicated in an extraordinary and superna-
tural way. And such a Revelation must either be by an im-
mediate infallible inspiration, or illumination of every par-
ticular person, for enlightening and directing him in the
knowledge and practice of Religion; or by God's making an
extraordinary discovery of himself, and of his will to some
person or persons, to be by them communicated to others
in his name. In the former case it could not be properly
called extraordinary Revelation: For if it were an universal
infallible light, imparted to every single person in every na-

14 Introductory Discourse, Sect. IL

tion and everj age, from the beginning of the world, it
would be as common and familiar to every one as the com-
mon light of reason, and by being universal would cease to
be extraordinary. That this is possible to the Divine Power,
cannot be doubted; but it is evident in fact, that this is not
the way which it hath pleased the Divine Wisdom to take
with mankind, t For if every man were inspired with the
knowledge of Religion in a way of immediate infallible
Revelation, it could not possibly have happened, that the
most of mankind, in all ages, have been involved in dark-
ness and error, and have fallen into a gross ignorance of
true Religion, and into the most absurd superstitions and
idolatries. If, therefore, there be such a thing as Revealed
Religion, if it hath pleased God to make discoveries of his
will to mankind with regard to religious truth and duty, in
a way of extraordinary Revelation, the most natural way
and that which is the best accommodated to the present
state of mankind, seems to be this; that the Revelation
should be imparted to some person or persons, to be by them
communicated to others in his name(/); at the same time
furnishing them with sufficient proofs and credentials, to

(/) When we speak of the Revelation's being communicated
to others, besides those who originally and immediately received
it from God, this is to be understood of the matter of that Reve-
lation, or the docirines and laws which are thus revealed. For
though the inspiration itself, considered as an act of God upon the
mind, is a personal thing, and cannot be communicated by the
person who receives it to others, yet the doctrines and laws hje
thus receives from God, may be by him communicated to others
by word and writing, as readily as if he had received them in
the ordinary and natural way. And they to whom they are thus
communicated, are obliged to receive them as of divine autho-
rity, in proportion to the proofs and evidences which are given
them, that the person that delivered them was indeed sent of
God, and received them by Revelation from him.

Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion. IS

shew that they were indeed sent and inspired by him; and
that the doctrines and laws they publish to the world in his
name were really and originally communicated by Revela-
tion from him. For in this method there is sufficient proof
given to satisfy well disposed minds, and provision is made
for instructing men, if it be not their own faults, in the
knowledge of Religion, and engaging them to the practice
of the duties it requireth: and at the same time, there is
room for the exercise of reason, for examination and enquiry
into the nature of the evidence, and for the trial of men's
sincerity and diligence, of their impartial love of truth, and
openness to receive it.

With regard to Revelation as now explained, several
questions arise, which deserve to be considered. The first
relates to the possibility of it. The second to the usefulness
and expediency, or even necessity of it in the present state
of mankind. The third relates to the proofs and evidences,
whereby it may be shewn, that such a Revelation hath been
actually given.

That God can, if he thinks fit, make a Revelation of him-
self, and his will to men in an extraordinary way, different
from the discoveries made by men themselves in the mere
natural and ordinary use of their own rational faculties and
powers, appears to me to be so evident, that I do not see
how any man that believes a God and a Providence, can
reasonably deny it. For if the power of God be almighty,
it must extend to whatsoever doth not imply a contradiction,
which cannot be pretended in this case. We cannot distinct-
ly explain the origin of our ideas, or the way in which they
are excited or impressed on the human mind. But we
know that these ways are very various. And can it be sup-
posed, that the author of our beings hath it not in his
power to communicate ideas to our minds, for instructing
and informing us in what it nearly concerneth us to know?
Our not being able clearly to explain the manner in which

16 Introductory Discourse, Sect. II.

this is done, is no just objection against it. For this we have
the acknowlede;ment of a noble and ingenious writer, who
is of a distinguished rank among the opposers of Revela-
tion. He observes that *'' an extraordinary action of God
upon the human mind, which the word inspiration is now
used to denote, is not more inconceivable than the ordinary-
action of mind on bodv, or body on mind." And that " it is
impertinent to deny the existence of any phsenomenon,
merely because we cannot account for it (m)."

And as it cannot reasonably be denied, that God can, if
he sees fit, communicate his will to men in a way of extra-
ordinary Revelation, so he can do it in such a manner, as
to give those to whom this Revelation is originally and im-
mediately made, a full and certain assurance of its being
a true divine Revelation. This naturally follows upon the
former. For to suppose that God can communicate his will
in a way of extraordinary Revelation, and yet is not able to
give a sufficient assurance to the person or persons to whom
he thus reveals his will, that the Revelation comes from
him, is evidently absurd and contradictory. It is, in effect,
to say, that he can reveal his will, but has no way of mak-
ing men know that he does so: which is a most unreasonable
limitation of the divine power and wisdom (ji). He that
pretends to pronounce that this is impossible, is bound to
shew w^here the impossibility of it lies. If men, like our-
selves, can communicate their thoughts by speech or lan-
guage in such a way as that we may certainly know who it
is that speaks to us, it would be a strange thing to affirm, that
God, on supposition of his communicating his mind and
will to any person or persons in a way of extraordinary Re-
velation, has no way of causing them to know that it is he,

(m) Lord Bolingbroke's Works, Vol. HI. p. 468. Edit. 4to.
(n) See, concerning this, Answer to Christianity as old as the
Creation, Vol. II. chap. i. p. 3, 4. second edit.

Sect. IL Of Revealed Religion, 17

and no other, that makes this discovery to them. The in-
genious author of the Moral Philosopher was sensible of
this. He expressly grants, that " God may communicate
and convey spiritual and divine truth, either mediately or
immediately as he thinks fit, either by the superior strength
and extent of men's own natural faculties, or by any more
immediate supernatural illumination." And again, tnat
*' God may reveal or discover truth to the mind ia a way
superior to what is common and natural." And he owns,
that " immediate Inspiration or Revelation from God may
communicate a certainty to the man thus imm diately in-
spired, equal to that which ariseth from a m \thematical
demonstration (o)." Though he will not allow, that the
knowledge of such truth can go any farther upon divine au-
thority, or as a matter of divine faith, than to the person or
persons thus inspired, or to whom the Revelation is imme-
diately made.

This leads me to another observation on this subject; and
that is, that God can commission those to whom he has
made an extraordinary Revelation of his will, to communi-
cate to others what they have received from him, and can
furnish them with such credentials of their divine mission,
as are sufficient to prove that he sent them, and that the
d(ictrines and laws they deliver in his name, were indeed re-
ceived from God. It must be acknowledged, that though
the persons to whom the original Revelation was made,
were never so sure that it is a true divine Revelation, and
that they received it from God; their being certain of it is
no assurance to others, except they be able to give some
farther proofs and evidences, which may be sufficient to
shew the justness of their pretensions. It is true, that if they'

(o) Moral Philosopher, Vol. I. p. 82, 83, 84. and Vol. II. p. 44,'
45.
Vol. I. e

18 Introductory Discourse, Sect. IL

appear from their whole conduct and character to be excel-
lent persons, of great piety, probity and simplicity, not ac-
tuated by worldly ambition, avarice, or sensuality, nor car-
ried away by a disorderly imagination and hot-brained
enthusiasm, but of sound and sober minds: if the Revela-
tion they profess to have received from God hath nothing
in it contrary to the evident dictates of right reason, and is
of an excellent tendency, manifestly directed to the glory of
God, and to the good of mankind, and to promote the cause
of truth, righteousness, and virtue in the world: if the doc-
trines and laws they publish in the name of God be of such
a nature, and have such a degree of wisdom, goodness, and
purity in them, as is vastly superior to what could have been
expected in an ordinary v/ay from the persons by whorei
they were published to the world; and therefore could not
be reasonably supposed to be the product of their own in-
vention: and if there be nothing in the whole that gives a
just suspicion of artful imposture, or a design to impose
upon mankind; but much to the contrary: These must be
owned to be strong presumptive arguments in their favour.
But still it may be reasonably expected, that if God com-
missions persons to deliver doctrines and laws to the world
in his name, he will furnish them with positive proofs and
evidences sufficient to convince reasonable and well-disposed
minds that he sent them. That it is possible for God to give
such proofs and evidences, cannot, without great absurdity,
be denied. The omnipotent author of nature, and Lord of
the universe, can undoubtedly, if he thinks fit, enable such
persons to perform the most wonderful works in his name
as a proof that he sent them; works of such a nature, and so
circumstanced, as manifestly to transcend all human power,
and bear the evident marks of a divine interposition ( /»).

{fi) Some of the most noted opposers of Revelation have made
concessions which tend to shew, that miraclesi supposing them

Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion. 19

He can also endue them with supernatural gifts, and enable
them to give express predictions of future contingent events
which no human sagacity could foresee; and which yet shall
be accomplished in the proper season. That God can, in his
inexhaustible power and wisdom, by these and other me-
thods, signify to the world that he sent them, and give a di-
vine attestation to the doctrines and laws delivered by them
in his name, no man that has just notions of the Deity, can
consistently deny. A writer, who has distinguished himself
in opposition to Revelation, has thought fit to own, that
**when men are sunk into gross ignorance and error, and
are greatly vitiated in their affections and passions, then
God may (for any reason, says he, that I can see to the
contrary) kindly interpose by a special application of his
power and providence, and reveal to men such useful truths
as otherwise they might be ignorant of, or might not attend
to; and also lay before them such rules of life as they ought
to walk by, and likewise press their obedience with proper

to have been really performed, may be of such a nature, as to
yield a sufficient proof of the divine mission of the persons by
whom, and of the divine authority of doctrines and laws in at-
testation of which they are wrought. Mr. Collins acknowledges,
that ^* miracles, when done in proof of doctrines and precepts,
that are consistent with reason, and for the honour of God, and the
good of mankind, ought to determine men to believe and re-
ceive them." Scheme of literal Prophecy considered, p. 321, 322.
Mr. Woolston says, " I believe it will be granted on all hands,
that the restoring a person indisputably dead to life is a stupen-
dous miracle, and that two or three such miracles well attested
and credibly reported, are enough to conciliate the belief, that the
author of them was a divine agent, and invested with the power
of God." See his Fifth Discourse on Miracles, p. 3. And Spinosa
is said to have declared, that if he could believe that the resur-
rection of Lazarus was really wrought as it is related, he would
give up his system.

2Q Introductory Discourse. Sect. II.

motives, and thereby lead them to repentance and reforma-
tion." This seems to be a fair concession; but he endea-
vours, as far as in him lies, to render it ineffectual by adding,
?* B't then that it is so, and when it is so, will, in the na-.
ture of the thing, be a matter of doubt and disputation (^)."
And elsewhere he confidently affirms, that " in what way so-
ever God communicateth knowledge to men, it must always
be a matter of uncertainty whether the Revelation be divine
or not: and that we have no rule to judge, or from which
we can with certainty distinguish divine Revelation from
delusion (r)." The plain meaning of which is this, that if
we should suppose, which is the case this author himself
puts, both that men stand in need of an extraordinary Reve-
lation from God, and that God sees fit to interpose, by a
special application of his power and providence, to grant
such a Revelation, yet he has it not in his power to effect
this kind design, or to make it known to the world that he
really gives such a Revelation, though his goodness should
incline him to do so, and the circumstances of mankind
should require it. This seems to me to be, in effect, an en-
tering a protest against the Almighty, and a declaring be-
forehand, that let him do what he can to assure us of his
having given such a Revelation of his will, we are resolved
not to believe it.

Another thing which ought to be observed upon this sub-
ject is, that not only they who live in the age when the Re-
velation was first published to the world, may have such
proofs of it as may be sufficient to convince them of its divine
authority and original, but that it may be transmitted with
such evidence to those that live in succeeding ages, as may lay
them under an obligation to receive and submit to it as a

(7) Chubb*s Posthumous Works, vol. I. p. 292, 293.
(r) Ibid. vol. II. p. 5.

3ect. II. Of Revealed Religion. %%

Revelation from God. Supposing doctrines and laws to have
been originally communicated in a way of extraordinary Re-
velation, all that would be necessary to render that Revela-
tion useful to distant ages and nations, would be that the doc-
trines and laws, which are the subject matter of this Revela-
tion, together with an authentick account of the proofs and
evidences by which the divme original and authority of that
Revelation was attested and confirmed, should be faithfully
transmitted to succeeding generations. In this case, those to
whom it is thus transmitted enjoy the benefit of that Reve-
lation, and may be said to havt the light of it, as really, though
not so immediately, communicated to them, as if they had
lived in the age when it was first given. It must be acknow-
ledged, that oral tradition is not a very sure conveyance.
But it is manifest, that writings may be transmitted with
such a drgree of evidence, as to leave no room for reason-
able doubt. This is the most simple and natural way of
propagating the knowledge of Revelation to succeeding
ages. If, therefore, that Revelation had any original au-
thority, then, on supposition that those of succeeding gene-
rations have sufficient evidence to assure them of its having
been safely transmitted, it is really of as divine authority to
them, as it was to those to whom it was first published,
and they are obliged to receive and submit to it as such:
since, on this supposition, they have those very doctrines
and laws in their hands, which were originally communi-
cated by Divine Revelation, and have also a sufficient assur-
ance of the truth of those extraordinary facts and evidences
by which it was originally attested and confirmed. No mai^
is able to shew, that there is any thing absurd in this sup-
position. And it may be, and has often been, cleared prov-
ed, that what is here supposed as possible, is actually fact,
with regard to the Revelation contained in the Holy Scrip-
tures: and that we have greater evidence of the safe trans-
mission of those sacred writings, without any general and i?ia-

22 Introductory Discourse. Sect. II.

terial corruption and alteration, thaa we have concerning
other books, the genuineness of which is universally ac-
knowledged.

I know of nothing which can be objected against this,
but the uncertainty of moral evidence, and the fallibility of
historical human testimony. It is easy to declaim plausibly
on this subject; but allowing all that can be reasonably al-
leged to shew that it is often fallacious, and not to be de-
pended upon, it cannot be denied that this kind of evidence
may be, and frequently is, so circumstanced, that the man
would scarce be thought in his senses that should seriously
deny or doubt of it. It is by moral evidence, and the testimony
of fallible men, capable of deceiving and being deceived,
that a man who has never been at Paris or Rome knows that
there are such cities, and yet he can no more reasonably
doubt of it than if he had seen them with his own eyes. It
is by moral evidence that we have all our laws and records,
and the assurance of any past facts. And yet is there any
man of sense, that does not as certainty believe many facts
which were done in former ages, as he believes any event
that has happened of late years, and within his own me-
mory? It is manifest that the author of our beings, and the
wise governor of the world, designed that a great part of
our knowledge should come in this way, and that we should
be governed and determined by this kind of evidence and
testimony in many cases of great importance. The necessity
we are under of doing this ariseth from the very frame of
our nature, and the constitution of things, and from the cir-
cumstances in which we are placed in the world, and conse-
quently from the will and appointment of God himself.
Why then should it be thought absurd to suppose, that he
should so order it that our knowledge of some important
matters relating to Religion, should also come in this way of
conveyance? If God has been pleased, in a former age, to
make a Revelation of his will to mankind, designed for the

Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion. 23^

use not only of that but of succeeding ages; and if this Re-
velation, with its doctrines and laws, be transmitted to us in
that way of conveyance, which we ourselves should count
unquestionable in other cases, and with as much evidence aS
we could reasonably expect, supposing a Revelation to have
been really given in past ages; and if we have as much as^
surance of the extraordinary facts whereby it was originally
attested, as we could fairly expect concerning any past facts,
supposing those facts to have been really done; God may
justly require us to receive and submit to that Revelation.
And he that receives it upon that evidence acts a wise and
good part, becoming a reasonable Being and Moral Agent.
To demand that God should continually send new Revela-
tions to assure us of his having formerly given us a well-at-
tested Revelation, and should cause the same facts to be
done over again for our conviction, would be the most un-
reasonable thing in the world. At that rate those extraordi-
nary facts must be repeated in every age, in every nation,
and for the satisfaction of every single person; for one hath
as much right to demand it as another; and by being thus
common, they would cease to be extraordinary, and this
very thing would hinder the effect. Miracles are not to be
multiplied without necessity. Nor can it be reasonably sup-
posed, that God will interpose in an extraordinary way to
assure us of past facts, when the ordinary is sufficient, and
when they come to us with as great evidence as the nature
of the thing will admit of, and which we ourselves should
count sufficient in any other case.

What has been offered may be of use to remove some
prejudices against Revelation in general, and to shew that
there is no absurdity in supposing that there may be such a
thing as Revealed Religion.

But although it cannot reasonably be denied, that God
can, if he pleases, make an extraordinary Revelation of his
will, accompanied with sufficient evidence to convince those

24 Introductory Discourse* oect. IL

to whom it is made known of its divine authority, yet it can-
not be supposed that he would do this if it were of no real
use or advantage to mankind. For it is not reasonable to be-
lieve, that an infinitely wise God would take such an extraor-
dinary method, if there were no necessity for it, and if it
would answer no valuable end at all.

The next thing, therefore to be considered, after having
shewn that an extraordinary Revelation from God is possi'jle,
is the great usefulness and advantage of Divine Revelation,
and the need there is of it in the present state of mankind,
for supporting and promoting the interests of religion and
virtue in the world. And there are several considerations
from which it may be justly concluded, that a >vell at-
tested Revelation from God would be of great advantage,
and a signal instance of the divine grace and goodness
towards us.

It may be of great use even with regard to those truths and
principles which lie at the foundation of all Religion; such
as the truths relating to the excellent and unparalleled nature,
the perfections and attributes of the one supreme God. The
generality of mankind seem not to be well qualified to pur-
sue these truths, and deduce them from clear and certain
principles, in an orderly chain of argumentation. They are
so taken up with their worldly concernments and carried oflP
by a variety of pleasures and cares, so intangled in sensible
and material objects, that if left merely to themselves, there
is little likelihood of their forming right ideas of things spi-
ritual and invisible. It is generally by education and instruc-
tion that these principles first enter into their minds, and
■ivhere they have not been taught or instructed, they know
little or nothing about them. And even as to persons of
philosophical minds, who apply themselves to abstract en-
quiries, and professedly search into the nature of things, how
apt they are, when trusting merely to the powers of their
own reason, to form wrong notions of the Deity, and how

Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion, 25

strangely bewildered in their enquiries on this subject, the
following book will afford many melancholy proofs. A
noble author, who is an avowed patron of Natural Religion
as opposed to Revelation, tells us, that " Theists will con-
cur in ascribing all possible perfections to the Supreme
Being:" But then he adds, that '^they will always differ when
they descend into any detail, and pretend to be particular
about them; as they have always differed in their notions of
of those perfections (.y)." I think, therefore, it cannot rea-
sonably be denied, that a true Divine Revelation might be
of great use for giving men a more clear and certain know-
ledge of that most adorable Being, and his glorious attri-
butes, than they would otherwise have attained to, and for
preventing or rectifying those errors they might be apt to
fall into, in matters of such importance, and which' are so
far above our reach. For who so fit to declare his own na-
ture and perfections, as far as it is proper and needful for
us to know them, as God himself? And it is what one
would think every real and well-disposed Theist should
earnestly wish for, that God would be graciously pleased to
make such a clear and express Revelation of himself and his
perfections, as might direct men in forming just and worthy
notions of the Divinity, especially of what it most nearly
concerneth us to know, his moral attributes.

Another matter of great importance, in which a Divine
Revelation might be of eminent use, relateth to the Provi-
dence of God. If left merely to our own reasonings and
conjectures, many doubts might arise in our minds, whether
that infinitely glorious majesty, who is exalted above our
highest conceptions, would concern himself about such in-
considerable beings as we are, or any of the things relating
to us. And as there are many who are uneasy at the

(«) Bolingbroke's Works, vol. V. p. 255. 4to.
Vol. I. D

26 Introductory Discourse, Sect. IL

thoughts of God's exercising a continual inspection over our
actions, this would naturally byass them to lay hold on any
pretence for rejecting it. But if God should condescend,
by an express Revelation confirmed by sufficient evidence,
to assure us of his concern for the individuals of the human
race; that he takes cognizance of their actions, and orders
the events relating to them; this would be the most ef-
fectual way to dispel their doubts, to strike bad men with
a wholesome fear, and to inspire the good and virtuous
with a chearful hope, and entire resignation, and a steady
affiance.

That some kind of religious worship and homage ought
to be rendered to God by his reasonable creatures, seems to
be a dictate of reason and nature. But what kind of wor-
ship will be most acceptable to the Supreme Being, and what
rites are most proper to be made use of in his service, un-
assisted Reason cannot pretend positively and with certainty
to determine. Even with respect to the offering up prayers to
God for the things we stand in need of, which is that part
of religious worship in which mankind seem to have been
most generally agreed (f), how far this might be proper, or
consistent with the veneration we owe to his sovereign great-
ness and majesty, might be matter of doubt and scruple,
without some signification of his will concerning it. And ac-
cordingly some persons who have made great pretensions to
wisdom, and a regard to the law of nature, have endeavour-
ed to set aside this part of our duty. But if God should, by
an express Revelation, appoint the rites of his own worship,
and shew men what kind of service he doth require, and will
accept; if he should not only allow, but command them to

{t) This seems to have been part of the primitive religion
derived from the first parents of the human race, and which was
originally owing to Divine Revelation.

Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion. 27

ofFer up their prayers and supplications to him, and give them
directions for the right performance of this duty, encourag-
ing them to it by the most gracious promises; this would
certainly, to all who believe and receive such a Revelation,
be a great satisfaction and advantage.

The doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul, and a Fu-
ture State of Retributions, is of mighty importance to man-
kind; and the natural and moral arguments to prove it are
of no small weight: but yet there are several things to be
opposed to them, which weaken the evidence, and may mi-
nister ground of suspicion and doubt, if considered merely
on the foot of natural reason. And accordingly some of the
most eminent antient philosophers either denied it, or ex-
pressed themselves doubtfully and waveringly concerning it.
And though the general principle, that God will, atone time
or other, either here or hereafter, reward good men, and
punish the wicked, is very agreeable to right reason; yet
with regard to several particulars comprehended under this
general principle, and upon which the right use and applica-
tion of it in a great measure depends, the unassisted light of
Reason can give us little information. But if God himself
should, by a well-attested Revelation, assure us, that death
shall not put an uttej* end to our being; that this present life
is only the first stage of our existence; that we shall be
raised again from the dead, and that God will call all men ta
an account, and reward or punish them in a future state ac-
cording their behaviour in this; and should also signify to
us the nature of those rewards and punishments, and the
qualifications of the persons on whom they shall be
conferred or inflicted; this must needs be of high ad-
vantage, and tend to give us satisfaction in a point of
considerable importance, for encouraging men to the
practice of virtue, and deterring them from vice and
wickedness.

The light of nature and reason may give us some general

28 Introductory Discourse, Sect. II.

ground of hope, that God will shew mercy to sinners
upon their repentance and amendment: but how far this
mercy shall extend; whether he will pardon all manner of
sins, even those of the most heinous kind, frequently re-
peated and long persisted in, barely upon repentance and
amendment; and whether his pardon in that case will be
only a mitigation or remission of the threatened penalty,
without a full restitution to grace and favour; and how far
he will reward an obedience attended with failures and de-
fects; these things might create anxious doubts and perplex-
ities to serious and thoughtful minds. Especially when it
is farther considered, that reason leadeth us to regard God
as just as well as merciful, a wise and righteous governor,
who will therefore exercise his pardoning- mercy in such a
way as seemeth most fit to his rectoral wisdom, and will best
answer the ends of moral government. And of this such
short-sighted creatures as we are cannot pretend to be com-
petent judges. It must, therefore, be a mighty advantage,
to be assured, by express Revelation from God, what the
terms are upon which he will receive his guilty offending
creatures to his grace and favour; that he will grant them a
full pardon of all their iniquities, though they may have been
very great and heinous, upon their true repentance and re-
formation; that he will not only deliver them from the pe-
nalties they had incurred by their sins, but will confer upon
them the most glorious privileges and benefits; and that he
will reward their dutiful and sincere obedience, though im-
perfect and falling short of what the law in strictness requires,
with eternal life and happiness. This must be an unspeakable
satisfaction to creatures conscious to themselves of many
failures and defects. And it must also give them great com-
fort and encouragement to be assured, by express promises
from God, that if they use their own earnest endeavours in
the performance of their duty, he will grant them the gra-
cious assistances of his Holy Spirit, when from a sense of

Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion. 29

their own weakness they humbly apply to him for them.
To have these things ascertained to us by a divine autho-
rity and testimony, must needs have a great tendency to fill
the hearts of good men with a pious confidence and joy, and
to animate them to a persevering diligence and constancy
in well doing, amidst the many difficulties and temptations
to which they are exposed in this present state.

With respect to moral obligations, as comprehending the
duties we owe to God, our neighbours, and ourselves, what-
ever certainty we might have of the grounds of those obli-
gations in general, yet we might be greatly at a loss, if left
merely to our unassisted reason, as to the particular laws
and duties comprehended under those general rules. There
may be duties which seem to be agreeable to reason, and
yet cannot be clearly proved by arguments from the nature
of the thing, to be necessarily obligatory. There may be such
objections brought against them, and with some appearance
of reason, as may very much weaken the force and influence
of them; especially if, as is often the case, a strong appetite
or apparent worldly interest, happens to be on the other side.
But a Divine Revelation, determining our duty in those in-
stances, would soon decide the point, and give those laws
and duties a weight and force which would over-rule the
contrary pretences. And I may appeal to the common sense
of mankind, whether a clear and positive Revelation from
God, declaring what it is that he requireth of us with re-
spect to the particulars of our duty, would not be a vast ad-
vantage: and whether in that case men would not come far
more easily and certainly to the knowledge of their duty,
than if they were left to collect it, every man for himself,
from the reasons and fitnesses of things; or from what he
might take to be the dictates of his own nature, and con-
ducive to his own happiness; as to which, through the pre-
valence of appetites and passions, men are very apt to pass
wrong. judgments; or from the reasonings of Philosophers

^0 Introductory Discourse, Sect. II.

and Moralists, who are far from agreeing in their sentiments;
or, if the} did, are not to be absolutely depended upon,
and have no authority to make their sentiments pass for
laws obligatory upon mankind.

The last thing I shall here observe, with regard to the
usefulness or necessity of Divine Revelation is, that there
may be several things, which it may be of great advantage
to us to know, which yet are of such a nature, that we
could not pretend at all to discover them merely by the force
of our own reason; as being things that do not lie within
our reach, or which depend upon the free counsels of God.
It is evident that in such cases a Divine Revelation is the
only means of discovery: and our certainty rises in propor-
tion to the proofs and evidences we have that it is a Divine
Testimony.

These several considerations are sufficient to shew, that a
true Divine Revelation, supposing God to give it to the
world, would be of great advantage: and that there is great
need of it in the present state of mankind. And where such
a Revelation is given, and there is sufficient proof of its Di-
vine authority, it ought to be received with the profoundest
submission and veneration, and with the highest thankful-
ness. But we are to take this along with us, that Divine
Revelation is not designed to supersede the use of our own
reason, or to render the exercise of it needless, but to
guide, improve, and perfect it.

Revelation is far from discarding or weakening any argu-
ment, that can be justly brought from reason, in proof of
any truths relating to Religion or Morality; but adds to
them the attestation of a divine authority or testimony,
which must needs be of great weight. This both gives a
farther degree of certainty with regard to those things which
are in some degree discoverable by the light of reason, and
furnisheth a sufficient ground of assent, with respect to those
things which bare unassisted reason, if left to itself, could

Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion, SI

not have discovered, and which yet it may be of use to us
to know.

By the common consent of mankind, a competent autho-
rity is, in many cases, a good and proper medium to assure
us of the truth of things. And to believe upon the credit
of such an authority and testimony is so far from being a
renouncing our reason, as some have pretended, that on
the contrary it is what reason and good sense require, and
to refuse it would be to act an absurd and unreasonable
part (v^. And particularly supposing an extraordinary Re-
velation from God, and that of this we are convinced by
sufficient proof, it is very reasonable to receive what is there
revealed upon the authority of the Revealer. And indeed it
would be a contradiction to believe it to be a Revelation
from God, and yet refuse our assent to it: Since it is a most
evident principle, that as God is incapable of deceiving
©r being deceived, whatsoever he hath revealed must be
true.

That God hath made a Revelation of his will to men,
hath been the general sense of mankind in all ages and na-
tions. This might have been originally owing to a tradition
of some extraordinary Revelation or Revelations really com-
municated in the earliest times, to the first ancestors of the
human race; from whom it was transmitted to their de-
scendants, though, in process of time, in a great measure
corrupted and lost. Or at least it shews, that men have ge-
nerally thought that a Revelation from God to men was both
possible and probable; and that this was agreeable to the
ideas they had formed of the wisdom and goodness of God,
and of his concern for mankind. It also shews, that they
were sensible of the need they stood in of such extraordinary

{v) Sec, concerning this, Answer to Christianity as old as the
Creation, Vol. II. chap. i. p. 17. et seq. edit, second.

32 Introductory Discoune. Sect. II.

discoveries from God, to instruct and direct them in the
knowledge of his will and their duty. It must be owned,
indeed, that this notion of an intercourse between God and
men in a way of extraordinary Revelation has given occasion
to impostures and delusions: that it has induced men of warm
imaginations to take their own reveries, the workings of
their distempered brain and fancies, for Divine Inspirations;
and that artful impostors have taken advantage from it to put
their own inventions upon the people for divine discoveries
and injunctions; in order to answer the ends of their ambi-
tion and avarice, and to erect a tyranny over the minds and
consciences of men. This has opened a large field for de-
clamation. But it affords no reasonable presumption, that
there never was a true Revelation given from God to men.
All that can be fairly concluded from it is, that the best and
most excellent things may be perverted and abused by the
folly and wickedness of men. The same way of arguing
has been employed by Atheists, to shew that mankind had
better be without any religioc; and that there is no way of
preventing or curing the mischiefs of superstition, but by de-
nying a God and Providence. And it might as plausibly be
pretended, that all kinds of civil government and polity
ought to be rejected, and that it would be better for man-
kind, that there were no civil government at all. And yet I
believe every considerate and impartial person will be of
opinion, that all the mischiefs which have arisen from the
abuse of religion and civil government, fall vastly short of
the evils of atheism and universal anarchy; which would
bring along with it a dissolution of all order, and of the
strongest bands of society; and would produce such a scene
of confusion and licentiousness, that a wise and good man
would be apt to prefer non-existence before it (?/).

(w) Cotta in Cicero has, in like manner, with great elo-

Sject. II. Of Revealed Religion, 33

Besides, it must be considered, that these gentlemen who
make this objection against the usefulness of Divine Revela-
tion, do not believe that there ever was a real Divine Reve-
lation given to mankind. They cannot, therefore, justly argue
from the mischiefs which they mention, and take so much
pains to exaggerate, that a real and well-attested Revelation
would be of no use or benefit to the world! Since, upon
their supposition, the mischief was only owing to falsely
pretended ones. And I cannot well see what method these
gentlemen could take to prevent it. If they themselves

quence, displayed the mischiefs of reason, and has endea-
voured to shew, that it would be better for mankind to be
without it; and that if the gods had intended to do them
harm, they could not have given them a worse thing. De
nat. Deor. 1. 3. cap. xxvi. et seq. et cap. xxxii. The sum of
what he there offers to shew that reason is not the gift of
God, is because of the abuse that has been made of it. And
whereas it might be said, that there are some who make a good
use of their Reason, he answers that these are very few; and it
cannot be supposed that God would only consult the welfare, or
provide for the benefit of a few. If he did it for any, he would do
it for all. " Si mens voluntasque divina idcirco consuluit homini-
bus, quod iis est largita rationem, iis solis consuluit, quos bona
ratione donavit: quos videmus, si modo ulli sint, esse perpaucos.
Non placet autem paucis a Diis immortalibus esse consultum:
Sequitur ergo ut nemini consultum sit. Ibid. cap. xxvii. p. 319. It
is after the same manner that some have argued, that if the benefit
of Divine Revelation were given to any, it must be given equally
to all; and since it is manifest it is not given to all, this shews it is
not given to any. This certainly would be thought a very absurd
way of talking in any other case. It by no means follows, that be-
cause some persons or nations seem to be advantageously dis-
tinguished above others by having better means of religious or
moral improvement, therefore they are to deny or slight their
own advantages, and not acknowledge them as the gifts and
blessings of Divine Providence, nor be thankful to God for them.

Vol. I. E

54 I?itroductory Discourse, Sect. II.

should set up for instructors of the people, what security
could we have that in that case they would not come in time
to acts the Priests, and take advantage to impose upon th«
ignorance and credulity of mankind for answering their own
political and interested views? Much of that false Religion
that is in the world, has been owing to men, who, in reality,
had no Religion at all. And it may justly be affirmed, that
a real Divine Revelation, published for the use of mankind,
and confirmed by sufficient evidence, would, if duly attend-
ed to, be the best and most effectual preservative against the
abuses and mischiefs arising from falsely pretended ones.
This would be the most likely means to furnish the people
with just notions of Religion, and to rescue them from that
ignorance which exposes them to imposture and delusion, and
tends to render them a prey to artful and designing men. And
it is certain in fact, that in those parts of the world, where
the Christian Revelation, as contained in the Holy Scriptures,
is most generally received and spread among the people,
the great principles of what is usually called Natural Reli-
gion are most generally believed and best understood: and
at the same time, the people, by being acquainted with the
Holy Scriptures, are the least liable to be imposed upon by
superstition and priestcraft (;\^). It is a thing not to be con-
tested, that what abuses have been or are found among pro-
fessed Christians, have not been owing to their adherence to
that Revelation, but to their deviations from it. And the
best and most effectual remedy against those abuses and
corruptions, would be to keep close to the original rule
of Faith and Practice laid down in those sacred writ-
ings.

The considerations which have been offered are sufficient

(x) This is what I have endeavoured particularly to shew;
Answer to Christianity as old as the Creation, Vol. I. chap. ix.

Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion, SS

to shew the possibility of an extraordinary Revelation from
God to men; and also that such a Revelation would be of
great use, and is very needful in the present state of mankind,
for leading them to the knowledge and practice of Religion.
And whosoever duly considers this, will be apt to conclude,
from the goodness of God and the necessities of mankind,
that God hath not left men at all times destitute of such a
valuable help for maintaining true Religion in the world, and
engaging them to the practice of piety and virtue. And ac-
cordingly it pleased God in his great goodness to communi-
cate the knowledge of Religion in its main fundamental
principles to the first parents and ancestors of the human
race, to be by them transmitted to their posterity. This pri-
mitive Religion became greatly corrupted in the succeeding
ages, especially in what related to the knowledge and wor-
ship of the one true God: and the nations were generally
fallen into the most gross idolatry and polytheism. God
might justly have left mankind without any farther extra-
ordinary discoveries of his will; but he saw lit, in his great
wisdom and goodness, to grant a new Revelation, which was
particularly designed to establish, by the most amazing ex-
ertions and displays of his divine power and majesty, the
sovereign glory and dominion of the only true supreme
God, in opposition to all idol deities: as also to give a sys-
tem of written laws, enforced by his divine authority, con-
taining the chief duties of morality in plain and express
precepts: and likewise to keep up the faith and hope of that
great Saviour of mankind, who had been promised from the
beginning, and to prepare the way for his coming by a series
of illustrious prophecies. This Revelation, though imme-
diately given to a particular people, was intended to be of
use to other nations, and really was so in several respects,
for preserving some knowledge of true religion in the world,
when it seemed to be in a great measure defaced and lost.
This was succeeded, at the distance of several ages, by the

36 Introductory Discourse. Sect. II.

most complete and perfect dispensation of Religion that ever
the world saw, and which was brought by that glorious and
divine Person, whose coming had been so long promised and
foretold, and who actually accomplished all the great things
which had been spoken of him by the ancient prophets. By
means of this Revelation, the knowledge and worship of
the one true God came to be restored among the nations,
which had been sunk in idolatry and polytheism for many
ages: The best and noblest ideas are there given of God,
and of the spiritual worship to be rendered to him: Precepts
of the purest morality are published to mankind, setting the
whole of our duty before us in its just extent: The most
wonderful displays are made of the exceeding riches of the
divine grace and mercy towards perishing sinners of the hu-
man race, and the gracious terms and glorious promises of
the new covenant are placed in the clearest light. The
most express assurances are given us of a future state of
retributions, some imperfect notions of which had long con-
tinued among the nations, but at length, through the cor-
ruption of mankind, and the false subtleties of men pretend-
ing to wisdom and philosophy, had been almost entirely de-
faced. The future punishments of the obstinately wicked
and impenitent are strongly asserted, and the fullest disco-
veries made of a blessed resurrection, and of eternal life and
felicity for good men, as the reward of their sincere though
imperfect obedience.

These several dispensations yield mutual light and support
to one another. The same scheme of Religion for substance
is carried through them all, but is especially completed in
the last. This which comes nearest to our own times, and
was accompanied with a fulness of evidence proportioned to
its vast importance, gives an illustrious attestation to the pre-
ceding dispensations. And as each of them have distinct
evidences of their own, so there is a conjunct evidence aris-
ing from the harmony of them when compared together,

ShbCT. II. Of Revealed Religion. 37

which exhibiteth a pleasing view of the divine wisdom and
goodness towards mankind.

It is not my design at present to enter upon a particular
consideration of the proofs that are brought for the divine
authority of the Jewish and Christian Revelation; both of
which refer to and confirm the original Revelation made to
mankind from the beginning. This has been done by many
learned pens with great strength of reason and argument;
and I have on some former occasions, contributed my endea-
vours this way (^/). Little has been opposed to the argu-
ments which have been offered on this subject, but suspi-
cions and presumptions, and often gross misrepresentations
and rude ridicule; or such particular difficulties and objec-
tions as do not affect the main of the evidence. Nor have I
met v/ith any thing that could deserve the name of a fair
and direct attempt, to invalidate the evidence of the extra-
ordinary and important facts, by which the divine original
and authority of those Revelations is attested and establish-
ed. The principal thing on which the adversaries of Reli-
gion seem to rely is the supposed sufficiency of human rea-
son, when left merely to its own unassisted force and
strength, for all the purposes of Religion; from whence it is
inferred, that an extraordinary Revelation is intirely need-
less and useless. But how little foundation there is for this
pretence, I propose to shew from undeniable fact and ex-
perience, in the ensuing treatise.

(y) See the Answer to Christianity as old as the Creadon,
Vol. II. especially the six first chapters. See also the Authority
of the Old and New Testament asserted, Vol. I. The same sub-
ject is also treated in several parts of the View of the Deistical
Writers. And an abstract of the whole may be seen in the Sum-
mary of the Evidences for Christianity at the latter end of that
work.

THE

ADVANTAGE AND NECESSITY

or TH«

CHRISTIAN REVELATION,

SHEWN FROM THE

STATE OF RELIGION

THE BEATKE^ WORLD.

PART I.

RELATING TO THE KNOWLEDGE AND WOliSHIP OF THE ONE
TRUE GOD.

CHAPTER I.

Man, in his original constitution and the design of his Creator, a religious crea-
ture. Not left at his first formation to work out a scheme of Religion for him-
self. It is reasonable to suppose, and confirmed by the most antient accounts,
that the knowledge of Religion was communicated to the first Parents of the
human race by a Revelation from God: and from them derived to their de-
scendants. God made farther discovei-ies of his will to Noah the second Father
of mankind. Tradition the chief way of conveying the knowledge of ReligioD
in those early ages.

That man is a religious creature, u e. capable of Reli-
gion, and designed for it, is apparent to anyone who makes
due Reflections upon the frame of the human nature (2) By

(z) When we say man is a religious creature, we do not mean
that every man is born with an actual knowledge of Religion

40 Man originally designed Part I»

Religion I understand the duty which reasonable creatures
owe to God their Creator and Benefactor, their sovereign
Lord and chiefest Good. It is manifest, from observation
and experience, that men have faculties capable of contem-
plating the great Author of their beings, and Lord of the
universe, of adoring his perfections, and of acting from a
regard to his authority, and in obedience to his laws. The
inferior animals seem to be well fitted for the various func-
tions and enjoyments of the sensitive life: but there is nothing
in them from which we can conclude that they are capable
of forming any notions of God, or of the obligations of Re-
ligion. If there have been people among whom scarce any
traces of Religion can be found, yet still they have faculties,
which, if duly improved, render them capable of being in-
structed in it. But who will undertake to instruct the brutes
in the knowledge of God, and in the principles and precepts
of Religion and Morality?

This seems then to be one remarkable proof of the supe-
rior excellency of man above the other creatures in this
lower world. From whence it follows, that he is designed
proportionably for a more excellent end, and for a higher
happiness. Since it is evident in fact, that man is capable of
rising in his thoughts, when duly instructed, above the sen-
sible objects which are before his eyes, to the invisible
author of nature, the supreme and absolutely perfect Being,
and of contemplating, loving, adoring, obeying him; it may
be justly concluded, that this was the principal end for
which he was designed, as being the worthiest employment
of his noblest powers. And to suppose this to be a principal
end of his being, and what he was originally made and de-

and its main principles, which is contrary to evident fact and
experience: but with faculties capable of attaining to it by re-
flection and proper instruction.

Chap. I. a religious Creature. 41

signed for, and yet that he is under no obligation to answer
that end, is too absurd and inconsistent to be admitted.
Man indeed hath a fleshy part and animal powers in com-
mon with the inferior creatures, by which he is fitted for
relishing and enjoying sensible good, but as he hath also a
mind within him, which is undoubtedly the noblest part of
his constitution, his principal end and highest happiness
must be judged of from the highest and most excellent part
of his nature: and in which his proper distinction and pre-
eminence above the inferior animals doth principally consist.

These several observations lead us to consider man as de-
signed and formed for Religion. If there be a relation be-
tween God and man, distinct from the relation men bear to
one another: (and this is as certain as it is that God exist-
ctb, and that man is a dependent creature, and the subject
of the divine government) then there must be duties arising
from the relation men bear to God, distinct from the duties
they owe to their fellow-creatures. And if it is the will of
God that they should act correspondently to the relations
they bear to one another, we are led, by the soundest max-
ims of reason and good sense, to maintain, that it is his will
that they should act conformably to the relations they bear
to him. To suppose a rational creature, a moral agent, to be
obliged to have a regard to his fellow-creatures, beings of
the same species with himself, and to be under no obligation
to have any regard to his Maker, the God and Father of
all, would be a manifest irregularity and deformity in the
moral system. As nothing can be more absurd and contrary
to truth and reason, than to deny that there is a God, so
nothing can be more unbecoming a rational creature, than
to live as without God in the world, and to shew no more
regard to him than if there was no such Being.

Nor is it any valid objection against this, that God is in-
finitely happy in himself, and therefore standeth not in need
of any homage or duty we can render to him, and is not

Vol. I. F

42 Man originally designed Part 1,

capable of receiving any benefit from our services. For this
would be to make the very perfection and excellency of his
nature, and the greatness of his majesty and dominion, an
argument for neglecting him, and shewing no regard to him
at all. God's being perfectly happy in himself is no reason
for his not requiring of his reasonable creatures, such duties
as the nature of things, and the relation between him and
them, make it fit for him to require and for them to per-
form. And what can be in itself more fit and reasonable,
and more agreeable to the rules of order, than that reason-
able beings, who derive their existence and faculties, and
all the blessings they enjoy from God, and whom he hath
made capable of contemplating, serving, and adoring him,
should render him that religious veneration and submission,
that love and gratitude, that adoration and obedience, which
is most justly due to their Creator, Preserver, and Bene-
factor, the Parent and Lord of the Universe?

To what hath been offered concerning Religion in gene-
ral, it may not be improper to add the suffrage of two no-
ble writers of great abilities, and who were certainly no
friends to superstition. The one is the Earl of Shaftsbury,
who says, '' man is not only born to virtue, friendship, ho-
nesty, and faith, but to Religion, piety, and a generous sur-
render of his mind to what happens from the supreme
cause or order of things, which he acknowledges, entirely
just and perfect (fl)." The other is the late Lord Boling-
broke, who acknowledges, that " man is a religious as well
as social creature, made to know and adore his Creator, to
discover and obey his will — Greater powers of reason and
means of improvement have been measured out to us than
to other animals, that we might be able to fulfil the supe-
rior purposes of our destination, whereof Religion is un-

(a) Characterist. vol. IIL p. 224. Edit. 5.

Chap. I. « religious Creature* 4S

doubtedly the chief — and that in these the elevation and
pre-eminence of our species over the inferior animals con-
sists (^)."

As certain therefore as it is that man had an intelligent
and wise author of his being (c) so certainly may we con-
clude, that he originally formed and designed him for Re-
ligion. And if so, it is reasonable to think, that whenever he
formed man he put him at his first creation into an imme^
diate capacity of answering this end of his being, and enter-
ing on a life of Religion. Two suppositions may be here
made, one of which must unavoidably be admitted. Either
it must be said, that God at his first formation only gave
him faculties and powers whereby he is capable of Religion,
but left him entirely to himself to acquire the knowledge of
Religion and his duty, by the mere force of his own unas-
sisted reason and experience: or, it must be supposed, that
the wise author of his being, at his first creation, communi-
cated to him such a knowledge of Religion, as enabled him
immediately to know his Maker, and the duty required of
him: in which case it cannot be denied, that the first notions
and discoveries of Religion came to the parents of the hu-
man race by immediate Revelation from God himself.

The former of these suppositions appears to me very
improbable, and not consistent with the best ideas we caa

{b) Bolingbroke*s Works, vol. V. p. 470. See also ibid. p. 340.
390, 391. Edit. 4to.

(c) A celebrated writer hath justly observed, that there cannot
be a greater absurdity than to suppose beings, who have reason
and intelligence, to proceed from a blind unintelligent cause.
C'eux qui ont dit qu*une fatalite aveugle a produit tous les effets
que nous voyons dans le monde, ont dit une grande absurdite.
Car quelle plus grande absurdite qu'une fatalite aveugle, qui
auroit produit des etres intelligens? L'Esprit des loix, vol. I.
chap. i. in the beginning.

44 Man at his first Formation Part I,

form of the wisdom and goodness of God, and the care he
must be supposed to exercise towards man at his first crea-
tion. It is most reasonable to suppose, that the first man
(and the argument will equally hold, whether we suppose
one or more men to have been originally created) was form-
ed in an adult state: for to have brought him into the
world in a state of infancy, and left him to himself without
any one to take care of him, or any parents to nourish and
support him, would have been to expose him destitute and
helpless to certain misery and death. And if he was first
formed in an adult state, it is not reasonable to think that
so noble a creature, endued by his Maker with such excel-
lent faculties, capable, if duly instructed, of attaining to a
high degree of knowledge, should be thrust out into the world,
like a huge overgrown infant, perfect indeed in his bodily
form and constitution, but with a mind utterly unfurnished;
having sensible ideas and appetites to fit him for a brutal
life, like the inferior animals, but destitute of that know-
ledge and those ideas, which were necessary to enable him
to answer the higher purposes of his destination. And what
made his case more particular and different from that of
those who were afterwards bom into the world, he had no
human parents, nor instructors of his own species, which is
the ordinary way by which men, in the present state, re-
ceive the first rudiments of knowledge.

If it be said he might soon, by the force of his own rea-
son, and the exercise of his intellectual faculties, acquire a
sufficient knowledge of God, and of his duty, and conse-
quently of true Religion, as far as it was necessary for him
to know it: I answer, that though the main principles of all
Religion, especially those relating to the existence, the uni-
ty, the perfections, and providence of God, when once clear-
ly proposed to the human mind, with their proper proofs
and evidences, and thoroughly examined and enquired into,
are perfectly agreeable to the most improved reason and

Chap. I. not left to seek his Religion. AiS

understanding of man, yet it can hardly be supposed, that
that the first man or men, if left to themselves without any
instruction or information, would have been able to have
formed, in a short time, a right scheme of Religion for
themselves, founded upon those principles. The arguing the
Being, the Unity, and Attributes of God from the works
of nature, and the harmony and order of the Universe, by
a chain of reasonings and deductions, seems to be a task
not very fit for the first of men, when rude and uncultivat-
ed. It is an observation of the Baron de Montesquieu, that
" the law which imprinted the idea of a Creator, and pre-
scribes our duty to him, is the first of natural laws in dig-
nity and importance, but not in the order of laws.— It is
clear, that in the state of nature, man's first ideas would
not be of a speculative kind: he would first think how to
preserve his own being, before he searched into the original
of his being." I think this must be allowed, supposing
man, at his first formation, to have been left merely to him-
self without instruction. It would probably have been a
long time before he raised his thoughts to things spiritual
and invisible, and attained to such a knowledge and con-
templation of the works of nature, as to have inferred from
thence the necessary existence of the one only true God, and
his infinite perfections. So that to have left him to himself,
in the circumstances he was then in, to find out all truths
moral and divine, which it concerned him to know, merely
by his own reason, without farther instruction, would have
been to have left him for a long time after his first forma-
tion without the knowledge of God and divine things,
without Religion, and consequently incapable of living up
to the highest end of his being. Supposing the first man or
men to have been mere savages, it might have been ages
before they came to a right knowledge of Religion, or to
form just ideas concerning it. Or, if man at his first crea-
tion be supposed to have had an excellent understanding

46 Man at his Jirst Formation Part I.

and powers of reason, yet if his mind at his first formation
had been without any ideas but what he gradually acquired,
he must have been a long time before he attained to the
knowledge of divine and invisible things, or could form a
language capable of expressing and communicating those
ideas (<^).

Though I am far from approving the account given by
Mr. Hume of the original of Religion, yet I cannot help
thinking there is a great deal of force in what that inge-
nious writer says, to shew that the first men in the earliest
ages did not come to the knowledge of the existence and
perfections of God by rational disquisitions and deductions
from the works of nature. He observes, that " if men had
been left to themselves, and the natural progress of the
human mind, they could not at first stretch their concep-
tions to that perfect Being, who bestowed order on the
whole frame of nature. The mind rises gradually from the
inferior to the superior — As nothing could disturb the na-
tural progress of thought, but some obvious and invincible
argument, which might immediately lead the mind into the
pure principles of Theism, and make it overleap, at one
bound, the vast interval which is interposed between the
human and divine nature. I allow, continues he, that the
order and frame of the Universe, when accurately examin-
ed, affords such an argument; yet I can never think that
this consideration could have any influence on mankind,
when they formed their first notions of Religion — A ne-
cessitous animal, pressed with numerous wants and pas-
sions, has no leisure to admire the regular face of nature,

(d) If we suppose man to have been created at first with in-
nate ideas of God and Religion, this is, in effect, to acknowledge
that God revealed them to him, and that from him his know-
ledge of Religion was derived.

Chap. I. not left to seek his Religion, 4/

and to make enquiries into the causes of the course of
things (^)."

Particularly with regard to that great printiple of true^
Religion, the Unity of God, or that there is one only God
and Father of all, this is not so easily demonstrable, as ne-
cessarily to engage the assent of the first men, untutored in
learning and philosophy. That the works of nature, which
we behold, owed their original to wisdom and contrivance,
and to some intelligent cause or causes, and were not the
mere effects of chance, or a blind unintelligent nature, may
seem clear, when duly proposed, to a common sound un-
derstanding: But whether there might not be more causes
and authors of the several parts of the Universe than one,
to the mere natural reason of men, who have made no great
progress in metaphysical enquiries, is not so evident. Mr.
Hume indeed urges, that " were men led into the appre-
hensions of invisible intelligent power, by a contemplation
of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain
any conceptions, but of one simple Being, who bestowed
existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all
its parts according to one regular plan, or connected sys-
tem." But, upon this supposition, the person who forms
this conclusion must be able to regard this vast Universe as
a well-connected system, one stupendous machine, all the
parts of which are admirably adjusted to one another, so as
to constitute one regular orderly harmonious Whole. And
this is a point which requires much more knowledge, more
extensive disquisitions and views, than generally fall to the
share of the bulk of mankind, or than those have leisure or

{e) Hume's Dissertation on the Natural History of Religion,
p. 5, 6. yet he owns, that " when the contemplation is so far
enlarged, as to contemplate the first rise of this visible system,
we must adopt with the strongest conviction the idea of som«
intelligent cause or author,** Ibid. p. 112.

48 The will of God revealed Part I.

capacity to attend to, who are not accustomed to abstracted
metaphysical speculations. If men were left merely to them-
selves without any other guide, they might be apt to ima-
gine a multiplicity of causes and authors; and that the
most conspicuous parts of the Universe, which they might
suppose to be distinct worlds, had different authors and ar-
chitects. Lord Bolingbroke observes, that " though the
first men could doubt no more that there is some cause of
the world, than that the world itself existed, yet in conse-
quence of this great event, and of the surprize, ignorance,
and inexperience of mankind, there must have been much
doubt and uncertainty concerning the first cause — The va-
riety of phaenomena which struck their senses, would lead
them to imagine a variety of causes (Z^)."

It is probable, from what has been said, that the first
men did not acquire the knowledge of God and Religion
by the mere force of their own reason. And since it may
be justly laid down as a principle, that man was originally
formed and brought into the world by a wise and good as
well as all-powerful Author, it is congruous to suppose,
that he made discoveries of himself and of his will to his
yet innocent creature; and furnished him immediately with
ideas of the things which it most nearly concerned him to
know; especially of those things, which lie at the founda-
tion of all Religion, and without some notion of which he
could not be in a proper capacity to answer the chief end
of his being. Such are the important truths relating to the
existence and attributes of God, the creation of the world,
his governing Providence, his being a rewarder of those
that faithfully serve and obey him, and a punisher of evil
doers; which supposes his having given a law to mankind

(/) Bolingbroke's Works, vol. III. p. 253. 259, 260. Edit.
4to. And he expresses himself to the same purpose, vol. IV.
p. 21.

Chap. I. to our Jlrst Parents. 4j^

for the rule of their obedience. And indeed this necessarily
follows from God's having made man a moral agent, capa-
ble of being governed by laws. And as a law is not obliga-
tory, unless promulgated, and made known, it is reasonable
to believe, that when God first placed man in the world^
he made a plain declaration of the duty required of him,
and did not leave him, at his first coming into the world^
to collect his duty merely in a way of reasoning from the
nature and fitness and relations of things. This was a work
for which, through want of knowledge, observation, and
experience, he could not be supposed to be well qualified^
except God should extraordinarily interpose for his in-
structiono

This, which in speculation is a most reasonable hypothe-
sis, appears, from the account given by Moses, to have
been true in fact. His history, abstracting from his au-
thority as an inspired writer, of which yet we have suffi-
cient proof, contains the best and most authentic relation
of the first age of the world which is any where to be met
with. The account he gives of the origin of the human
race from a first pair, one man and one woman, both of
them created by God in an adult state, endued with know-
ledge and language, immediately capable of conversing
with their Maker and with one another, is worthy of God^
and honourable to mankind. It is infinitely superior to the
mean and senseless accounts of the origination of Mankind
given by the ancient Egyptians, according to Diodorus, and
afterwards by the Epicureans, and others who called them-
selves philosophers. The history Moses gives us of the first
ages of the world before the flood is very short: But it suffi-
ciently appears from it, that the first parents of the human
race were brought into the world, not in an helpless infant
state, but in a state of maturity, placed in an happy situa-
tion, and in advantageous circumstances for preserving
their purity and innocence: and that to supply their wan^

Vol. I. G

50 The Will of God revealed Part I.

of observation and experience, God was pleased, in hi«
great goodness, to favour them with extraordinary notices
and significations of his will and of their duty. Some few
particulars are mentioned, which shew that God made dis-
coveries of himself to our first parents, and gave them laws.
Of this kind was God's blessing and sanctifying the Sabbath
day. This supposes that he communicated to our first pa«
rents the knowledge of the creation of the world, of which
this was designed to be a solemn memorial: That the hea-
vens and heavenly bodies, the earth and all things that are
therein, and particularly their own bodies and souls, as well
as all other animals, were the productions of his powerj
wisdom, and goodness. A most important point of know-
ledge this! And which included in it the belief and acknow-
ledgment of the existence, the perfections and attributes
of the one true God, the supreme and absolutely perfect
Being. Moses also gives an account of the early institution
of marriage, and law concerning it, which, though repre-
sented as spoken by Adam, yet, considering how soon this
happened after the creation, and how little knowledge he
could then have attained to by his own experience, must
have been divinely revealed to him: especially since it con-
tained directions in this matter, which were to be a rule to
future ages. He also informs us, that there was a particular
law given to our first parents concerning their not eating
the forbidden fruit, which, whatever objections some have
made against it, was very properly suited to the condition
and circumstances in which they were then constituted (^).

(jg) I have elsewhere vindicated the Mosaic account of
man's origintil dignity and of his full, against the objections ad-
vanced by Dr. Tindal and others. Answer to Christianity as old
as the Creation, vol. II. cap. xv. And as to the particular injunc-
tion which Moses tells ns was laid upon our first parents by
way of trial of their obedience, it is no hard matter to shew, that

Chap. I. to our first Parents. 51

He acquaints us with the declaration and effects of the
divine displeasure against them for their disobedience, and
the original promise made to them to keep them from sink-
ing under despondency: the true meaning and design of
which was no doubt more distinctly explained to our first
parents, than is mentioned in that short account. By it God
gave them to understand, that though they had suffered

it had nothing in it unbecoming the supreme wisdom and good-
ness. For since God was pleased to constitute man lord of this
inferior creation, and had ^iven him so large a giant, and so
many advantages, it was manifestly proper that he should re-
quire some particular instance of homage and feahy, to be a me-
morial to man of his dependence, and an acknowledgment on
his part that he was under the dominion of an hig^her Lord, to
whom he owed the most absolute subjection and obedience. And
what properer instance of homage could there be in the circum-
stances man was then in, than his being obliged, in obedience
to the divine command, to abstain from one or more of the de-
licious fruits of Paradise? It pleased God to insist only upon his
abstaining from one, at the same time that he indulged him in
a full liberty as to all the rest. And this served both as an act of
homage to the supreme Lord, from whose bountiful grant he
held Paradise and all its enjoyments, and was also fitted to teach
our first parents a noble and useful lesson of abstinence and self-
denial, one of the most necessary lessons in a state of probation;
and also of unreserved submission to God's authority and will,
and an implicit resignation to the supreme wisdom and good-
ness. It tended to habituate them to keep their sensitive appe-
tite in a due subjection to the law of reason; to take them off
from a too close attachment to inferior sensible good, and to en-
gage them to place their highest happiness in God alone: And
finally, to keep their desire after knowledge within just bounds,
so as to be content with knowing what was really proper and
useful for them to know, and not presume to pry with an un-
warrantable curiosity into things which did not belong to them,
and which God had not thought fit to reveal. See the view of
the Deistical Writers, vol. IL p. 144, 145, 3d edit.

S2 The Will of God revealed Part I,

tkemselves to be drawn into sin and disobedience by the
tempter, he would, in his great goodness, provide a glori-
ous deliverer, who was to proceed from the woman, to
break the power of the enemy that had tempted them, and
to rescue them from the miseries and ruins they had brought
upon themselves by their apostacy. And it may be reasona-
bly supposed, that they had hopes given them, that though
they and their posterity were still to be subject to many
evils and to temporal death, as the effects and punishments
of sin, yet upon their repentance and sincere obedience,
they were to be raised to a better life. And accordingly the
hope of pardoning mercy, and the expectation of a future
state, seems to have obtained from the beginning, and to
have spread generally among mankind in the earliest ages,
by a most antient tradition, as I shall have occasion to shew
afterwards. And this is best accounted for by supposing it
to have been part of the primitive Religion, derived from
the first parents of the human race, who had it by immedi-
ate Revelation from God himself.

That there was an intercourse between God and man in
the first ages, and that he then communicated to men the
discoveries of his will, farther appears from what is related
concerning Cain and Abel: as also from the high encomium
given of Enoch that he walked with God, and the distin-
guishing reward conferred upon him for his piety, which
exhibited a sensible proof of a future state.

As there is great reason to think that God communicated
the knowledge of the fundamental principles of Religion
and moral obligations to the first parents of the human
race; so if this were the case, it is rational to conclude that
they must have been led, both by a sense of duty and by
inclination, to communicate that knowledge to their pos-
terity. For it appears from the original constitution of the
human nature, and was probably enforced by an express
idiyine command, that the Author of our beings designed,

Chap, I. to our frst Parents,

that parents should endeavour to instruct their children;
this being the ordinary inlet to the first rudiments of know-
ledge, especially with respect to the main principles of Re-
ligion, and the duties of morality. And the first of the
human race, who came immediately out of the hands -)f
God, must have had an authority this way, which non^; of
those of succeeding generations, in the ordinary course of
things, could have. The world was just made, the Creation
fresh in memory, and the communications of God to men
frequent and sensible. Nor could their children have the
least just grounds to suspect the veracity of their informa-
tion, or that they had any intention to impose upon them,
They needed none of those credentials, which were after-
wards necessary, when there had been false pretences to
Revelation in opposition to the true. They delivered what
they themselves knew to be true, and what they had re-
ceived from God; and it must have come from them wi«;h a
peculiar weight, and ought to have been received with great
veneration and an entire credit. And the long lives of tho
first man and his immediate descendants (A) gave them a
singular advantage for preserving and propagating those
traditions. It is easy to conceive, that they might, without

(A) Josephus, speaking of the long lives of men in the first
ages, as recorded by Moses, concludes with saying — " I have for
witnesses all those that have written antiquides both among
Greeks and Barbarians." He particularly mentions Manetho and
Berosus, Moschus, Hestiaeus, Hieronymus the Egyptian, those
who composed the Phoenician history, Hesiod also and He-
catseus, and Hellanicus and Acesilaus. And besides these,
Ephorus and Nicolaus relate that the ancients lived a thousand
years. Joseph. Archseolog. 1. i. cap. 3. Mr. Whiston, in a note
upon this passage in his English translation of Josephus ob-
serves, that he might have added Varro, who made that enquiry,
what the reason was that the antients are supposed to have lived
p^ thousand yearso

54 Farther Discoveries of Part I.

much difficulty, be transmitted to Noah the second father
of mankind. Methuselah was cotemporary with Adam
about 245 years, and with Noah 600 years. And as Noah
himself was a man of eminent piety and virtue, and lived
600 years with those of the old world, he would, no doubt,
be particularly careful to get a true information of the ori-
ginal principles of Religion delivered to the first parents of
mankind. We may, therefore, reasonably conclude, that he
retained whatsoever there was of chief importance in the
ancient primitive Religion. And it is also agreeable to the
divine wisdom and goodness, as well as to the accounts
given us by Moses, to suppose, that God, who in so extra-
ordinary a manner distinguished him, and saved him from
the universal deluge, made farther discoveries of himself
and of his will to Noah, to be by him communicated to his
descendants. And this may be justly regarded as a second
promulgation of Religion in its main principles to the whole
human race. I'he deluge itself, the memory of which could
not be soon forgotten (i) must have had a great influence

p) There is no one fact, considering its great antiquity, which
comes to us better attested than the universal deluge. Josephus
quotes Berosus the Chaldean, Hieronymus the Egyptian, who
writ the Phoenician antiquities, Nicolaus of Damascus, and
Mnaseas: and adds, that a great many more make mention of
the same. Joseph, ubi supra. The tradition of it hath spread
through the world, and is preserved in the memory of all na-
tions: in the continent of America as well as Asia, in the East
and West Indies, among the Africans and Europeans. See
Burneti Telluris Theor. sacra, 1. i. cap. 3. See also testimonies
to this purpose collected by Grotius De Verit. Relig. Christ.
1. i. sect. 16. and by the learned author of Revelation examined
with candour, Part I, Dissert. 13, U. And indeed there many
things in the present constitution of the earth, which show that
such a flood there hath been, and that the whole earth was co-
Tered with it.

Chap. I. God'*s Will made to Noah, $$

to impress men's minds with a sense of Religion and its
obligations. It must have strengthened their faith in God,
who made the earth at first, and placed man upon it, and
who by this stupendous event shewed that he had power, if
he pleased, to destroy it. It gave men a sensible proof, that
he is the Lord of nature, and hath a sovereign dominion
over it, and over all the elements; that his Providence con-
cerneth itself with men and their actions; that he is a hater
of vice and wickedness, and a punisher of evil doers, and
is a lover and rewarder of righteousness, and delivereth
those from the greatest evils, that love and serve him in
sincerity. It cannot be reasonably doubted, that Noah, both
when he was in the ark, where he had leisure and oppor-
tunity, and after he came out of it, took care to instruct his
children and descendants in those heads of Religion which
he himself had received; particularly those relating to the
knowledge and worship of the one true God, the creation
of the world, the Providence of God as a rewarder and
punisher, the laws he hath given to mankind, and a future
state; some notions of which were, by tradition, generally
spread among the nations.

The ages immediately following the flood cannot be sup-
posed to have been ages of learning and philosophy. It is
well observed by a learned writer, that " the manner of life
men led in the ages next following the dispersion, and the
pressing necessities they were under, occasioned their mak-
ing a very slow progress in the sciences (i)-" As the wide
earth was before them, it may naturally be supposed, that
many of them would wander about seeking proper habita-
tions; some of whom would remove to countries far distant
from their first settlement, and fall by degrees into a rude
and savage kind of life. They had little leisure or inclina-

(k) De rOrigine des loix, des arts, et des sciences, torn, t
p. 396, 397.

56 The Knowledge of Religioh Part f .

tion for sublime speculations. The arts and sciences known
before the flood were generally lost with the inventers of
them, and those that exercised them; yet still some remains
of Religion, some notions of a Deity, of a Providence, of
a future state, and of the moral diff'erences of things were
generally preserved, even in those parts which became wild
and savage. It cannot well be supposed, that in their cir-
cumstances they attained to a notion of these things in a
way of reasoning and argument. And therefore it can be
attributed to nothing so probably as the remains of an an-
tient universal tradition derived from the first ancestors of
the human race: and which the heads of families that pro-
ceeded from Noah, and who had received those principles
from him, carried into the several regions of their disper-
sion«

Here it may be proper to take notice of a remarkable
passage of Plato in the beginning of his third book of laws.
He speaks of a destruction which happened to men by a
flood, and from which very few escaped; who were shep-
herds, and abode on the tops of mountains, and became
the seed of a new generation. He says, that cities, civil poli-
ties and governments, together with the knowledge of arts,
having been lost and perished in the confusion, the succeed-
ing generations of men were for a long time ignorant: that
they followed the customs and manners of their ancestors,
especially in what related to Religion and the Gods; and
that they gradually formed themselves into societies, and
had the most antient men among them, and the heads of
their families, for their leaders and governors.

I think there are here manifest traces of the universal de-
luge. The account he gives of it cannot be well applied to
a particular inundation, confined to Attica, Thessaly, or
Greece, as were those of Deucalion or Ogyges; though the
Greeks after their manner blended and confounded them
with the traditions they had received concerning the Noa-

Chap. I. Godh Will made to Noah. ST

chic deluge. Plato speaks of a flood which extended to the
greatest part of mankind. And he supposes, that those who
remained after the deluge still retained something of the
customs and Religion of their fathers, which they transmit-
ted to their posterity. He intimates that there were tradi-
tions of this in his time, and introduces the account with
this question, " Do the antient traditions seem to you to
have any truth in them?" To which he answers in the affir-
mative. But in this as well as other instances, the primitive
traditions were very much altered and corrupted among the
Greeks, and were kept more pure and distinct in some other
nations: of which the testimonies of Berosus in his Chal-
dean antiquities, and of Lucian in his treatise De Dea Syria
are remarkable instances,* whose traditionary accounts con-
cerning the flood are in several respects agreeable to that
which is given by Moses.

It may reasonably be supposed, that in those parts of the
world, which were first peopled after the flood, and which
were nearest the place where the first restorers of the human
race chose to reside, what remained of arts or knowledge,
after the universal shipwreck, were chiefly to be found.
There also it might be expected, that the greatest vestiges
of the antient Religion might be traced, as being nearest the
fountain head. And they that were afterwards scattered to
distant parts, would be apt sooner to lapse into ignorance
and barbarism. The best remains of antient history agree in
this with the Mosaical accounts; that in the Eastern parts of
the world, i. e. where Noah and his family first settled after
the flood, societies and civil polities were first formed, cities
built, and arts cultivated. The East was the source of
knowledge, from whence it was communicated to the
Western parts of the world. There the most precious re-
mains of antient tradition were to be found. Thither the
most celebrated Greek philosophers afterwards travelled in
quest of science, or the knowledge of things divine and

Vol. I. H

58 The knowledge of Religion Part I,

human. And thither the lawgivers had recourse, in order to
their being instructed in laws and civil polity.

It is a thing well known, that the wisdom of the East
consisted much in teaching and delivering antient traditions,
Diodorus Siculus has a remarkable passage concerning the
different ways of philosophizing among the Chaldeans (and
it holdeth equally of other Eastern nations) and the Greeks.
He observes, that the former did not give a loose to their
invention as the Greeks did, but were for adhering to the
tetaets derived by tradition from their antient wise men.
And indeed this was the oldest way of philosophizing among
the Greeks themselves. The learned Dr. Thomas Burnet
has observed, that the traditionary philosophy, which did
not depend upon reasoning and the investigation of causes,
but upon the primitive doctrine delivered by tradition from
their fathers, seems to have continued among the Greeks,
lower than the times of the Trojan war. Durasse mihi vide-
tur ultra Trojana tempora philosophia traditiva, qua ratio-
ciniis, et causarum explicatione non nitebatur, sed alterius,
generis ct originis, doctrina primigenia et -^eeir^Q^x^echorm.
Archaeol. Philos. 1. i. cap. 6. The same learned author, in
the 14th chapter of that book, which treats De Originc
Philosophise Barbaricse, speaking of the antient sages and
philosophers among the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phoenicians,
'^iEthiopians, Arabians, Indians, says, they never shewed an
inventive genius, so as to make it probable that they owed
the things they taught to the force of their own reason. It
was not the manner of the antients to form systems and
theories, and to demonstrate their doctrine by causes and
effects. They delivered their tenets simply, not in a way of
argumentation, but as what ought to be received by the
learners or hearers upon the authority of the wise men,
without doubting or disputing. He instances in the doctrine
of the formation of the world out of a chaos, and the con-
flagration or destruction of the world by fire, both which

Chap. I. conveyed by Tradition, ' 5%

spread generally among the antients, but without assigning
any reasons to confirm them (/). He thinks, therefore, that
these and other things which were generally received, were
probably owing to an antient tradition derived from Noah:
or they might be a part of the traditions derived to Noah
from the Antediluvian Patriarchs, and which were originally
communicated, by divine Revelation, to the first father of
mankind.

The latter Greeks, who had an high opinion of their own
wisdom, were loth to own, that they derived any part of
their knowledge from the Barbarians, as they called all other

(/) I shall afterwards take notice of the tradition about the ori-
gin of the earth from a chaos. As to the conflagration of the
world, it was a doctrine of the highest antiquity. It was con-
stantly maintained by the Stoicks, but they were not the authors
of it. It was taught before them by Heracliius, Empedocles, and
others. And it probably came to the Greeks from the Egyptians
and Phoenicians. Zeno himself, the father of the Stoicks, was of
Phoenician origin. The Egyptians, as Plato informs us, held suc-
cessive destructions of the world by deluges and conflagrations.
Thus they joined the traditions of the first destruction of the
world by water, and the last which shall be by fire, together,
mixing the traditions, and supposing those destructions to return
at certain periods. The poets have likewise preserved theantient
tradition of the conflagration of the world, as might be shewn
from Sophocles, Lucretius, Ovid, Lucan, &c. The Brachman*
also in India have held from the most antient times, and still
hold, that the world shall be destroyed by fire. See Burnet's Tel-
luris Theor. sacr. 1. iii. cap. 2. and his Archaeol. 1. ii. Appendix.
This tradition, like many others, was altered and corrupted,
especially by those who, like the Stoicks, supposed periodical
conflagrations and renovations of the world; and some of them
carried it so far as to maintain, that after such conflagrations, the
whole series both of persons and things should be restored exact-
ly in the same condition it was in before, and the same actions
done over again. Orig. cont. Cels. 1. y. p. 245.

60 The Knowledge of Religion Part I.

nations but themselves. Diogenes Laertius blames those
who presumed to say, that philosophy had its rise among
the Barbarians, and affirms, that they ignorantly applied to
the Barbarians what the Greeks themselves had rightly done
and invented. His prejudice in favour of the Greeks carries
him so far as to say, that from them not only philosophy
but the human race had its original. Laert. in Procem. Segm.
3. And yet it is a thing certain, and universally acknowledg-
ed, and which appears from his own accounts, that the most
celebrated among the antient philosophers travtiled into the
eastern countries, Chaldea, Phoenicia, Egypt, Persia, and
some of them as far as India, to converse with the wise
men of those nations for their improvement in knowledge.
A long catalogue is given by Diodorus Siculus of those of
them that travelled into Egypt, who had it from the Egyp-
tian priests. Plato, in his Epinomis, acknowledges that the
Greeks learned many things from the Barbarians, though
he asserts, that they improved what they thus borrowed,
and made it better, especially in what related to the worship
of the Gods (m). That' great philosopher himself spent
several years in Egypt among the Egyptian priests, as Py-
thagoras, of whom he was a great admirer, had done before.
And it has been often observed, that there are many things
in his writings which he learned in the East; and that from
thence he seems to have borrowed some of his sublimest
Dotions, though he probably embellished, and added to them
by the force of his own genius. There are several passages
in his works, in which he represents theological truths, as
having been derived, not merely from the reasonings of
philosophers, but from antient and venerable traditions,
which were looked upon as of divine original, though he
sometimes intimates that they were mixed with fables.

(w) Plat. Opcr. p. 703. Edit. Ficin. Lugd. 1590.

Chap. I, conveyed by Tradition, 6t

Eusebius, and others of the fathers contend, that all the
knowledge of divine things among the Greeks, came ori-
ginally from the Hebrews. But this seems to be carrying it
too far. Some of those things may well be supposed to have
been the remains of antient tradition, derived not merely
from the Hebrews, or the Mosaic and Prophetical writings,
but from the Patriarchal ages; some vestiges of which
continued for a long time, especially among the Eastern
nations.

The several considerations which have been mentioned,
make it highly probable, that Religion first entered into
the world by Divine Revelation: that it was not merely the
result of men's own unassisted reason, or the effect of learn-
ing and philosophy, which had made little progress in those
early ages: but owed its original to a Revelation communi-
cated from God to the first parents of the human race.
From them it was delivered down by tradition to their de-
scendants: though, in process of time, it became greatly
obscured, and corrupted with impure mixtures.

62 Idolatry not thejlrst Religion of Mankind. Part I.

CHAPTER II.

The first religion of mankind was not idolatry, but the knowledge and worship
of the one true God. Some vestiges of which may be traced up to the most an-
tient times. A tradition of the creation of the world continued long among the
nations. The notion of one Supreme God was never entirely extinguished ia
the Pagan world; but his true worship was in a great measure lost and con-
founded amidst a multiplicity of idol deities.

From the account which hath been given in the preced-
ing chapter, it may be fairly concluded, that not Idolatry,
but the worship of the one true God, was the first Religion
of mankind. But this deserves to be more distinctly con-
sidered, as it is what some are not willing to allow. Mr.
Hume, in his Dissertation on the Natural History of Reli-
gion, having endeavoured to shew, that the first men were
not qualified to find out the existence and perfections of
God, the sole Creator of the Universe, by reasoning from
the works of nature, draws this conclusion from it, that
Theism was not the first Religion of the human race. " If,
says he, we consider the improvements of human society
from rude beginnings, to a state of greater perfection, Poly-
theism and Idolatry was, and necessarily must have been,
the first, and most antient Religion of mankind," p. 4. And
again, he pronounces it " impossible that Theism cotdd,
from reasoning, have been the primary Religion of the hu-
man race," ibid. p. 9. (n). But his argument does not prove,
that Theism, or the acknowledgment and worship of one
God, was not the Religion of the first ages; it only shews,
that it was not the mere result of their own reasonings: and

(n) Lord Bolingbroke is of the same opinion. See his Works,
vol. III. p. 256. 260.

Chap. II. Idolatry not the first Religion of Mankind, 63

therefore if it obtained among them, it must have been
owing to a divine Revelation originally communicated to
the first men. And this was the case in fact. He supposes,
in the passage above quoted from him, to which ethers
might be added, that it was impossible that men in the first
ages of the world, should, if left to themselves in the cir-
cumstances they were in, have any other Religion than
idolatry; and he asserts, that they were left to them selves
accordingly, and therefore were necessarily idolaters. But
I can hardly conceive a greater absurdity, than to imigine
that a wise and good God, the parent of mankind, should
place them in such circumstances at their first formation,
and for many ag<^s afterwards, that they must either un-
avoidably have no Religion at all, or a false one; so tlat it
was absolutely impossible for them not to be idolaters and
polytheists. This seems to me to cast the most unworthy
reflections on Divine Providence. It is far more rational to
suppose, that, through the divine goodness, the first partnts
and ancestors of the human race had a knowledge' of Reli-
gion in its main fundamental principles, communicated to
them from God himself, at their first coming into the world,
to put them into an immediate capacity of knowing and
adoring their Maker. For in this case, if they, or their de-
scendants afterwards, fell into polytheism and idolatry, it
was their own fault; wholly owing to themselves, and not
chargeable on Divine Providence; since there was an ori-
ginal Revelation granted them, which they had it in their
power, and were under the strongest obligations to trans-
mit pure to their posterity (w). But the supposing mankind

(n) The account which Mr. Hume himself gives of the ori-
gin of Religion among mankind is very extraordinary. He ac-
knowledgeth, that "there is a consent of mankind, almost uni-
versal, in the belief that there is an invisible intelligent power in

64 Idolatry not the Jir St Religion of Mankind. Part 1,

at their first formation to have been constituted in such cir-
cumstances, that it was impossible for them to know and
worship the one true God, the Maker and Lord of the Uni-
verse; u e, to fulfil the principal end of their being; and

the world." But he gives no sufficient account, how there came
to be such a general consent of mankind in this belief He never
takes ihe least notice of a Divine Revelation as having given rise
to it: nor will he allow, that the first ideas of Religion arose
from the contempladon of the works of nature, for which he
thinki the first men, in the circumstances they were in, were by
no means quulified. Whence then doth he suppose the first no-
tions of Religion to have proceeded? It is "from men's examin-
ing iito the various and contrary events of human life, and in
this disorderly scene with eyes still more disordered and asto-
nished, they see the first obscure traces of Divinity." Dissert, on
the Mat. Hist, of Religion, p. 13, 14, 15. A goodly account this
of the first original of the idea of God and Religion among man-
kind! It is true, that when men have once formed a notion of
invisible intelligent powers, they might be apt to attribute to
such powers, those events which they could not otherwise aC'
count for. But the mere consideration of the fortuitous accidents,
as he calls them, of human Ufe, and which they might be apt to
attribute to chance, could not give them the first notion of supe-
rior invisible power; nor doth it all account for this notion's hav-
ing been almost universal among mankind, as he owns it to have
been. According to his scheme, Elves and Fairies, to which he
compareth the Heathen Deities, must have been the first Gods
of the human race. Whereas it appeareth from the best accounts
of the most antient times, that the worship of the one true God,
the Creator of heaven and earth, was the first Religion of man-
kind, and that the first idolatry, or deviation from the primitive
Religion, was the worship of heaven and the heavenly bodies; to
which they were led by their admiration of them, and by consi-
dering their splendor and influence on this lower world. Mr.
Hume's account of the origin of Religion among mankind is
founded in his own imagination, without any authority or reason
to support it.

Chap. II. Idolatry not the first Religion of Mankind. 63

that idolatry and polytheism was the necessary result of the
state they were at first placed and long concinued in; this is
laying the blame of their false Religion and Polytheism, not
upon themselves, but upon God, and making him the pro-
per author of it. The hypothesis, therefore, that Polytheism
and Idolaitry was not the first original Religion of mankind,
but only the corruption of it, is far more agreeable to reason,
and more consistent with the best notions we can form of
the wisdom and goodness of Divine Providence.

And this, which is most agreeable to reason, is also riiost
conformable to the best accounts which are given us of the
antient state of mankind. Mr. Hume indeed appeals to facty
that " all mankind, a very few excepted, were idolaters-
from the beginning, and continued so till 1700 years agor
and that the farther we mount up into antiquity, the more
we find mankind plunged into idolatry: no marks or symp-
toms of a more perfect Religion." But if by idolatry he-
means, which seems to be what he intends by it, that man-
kind, from the beginning of the world, were absolutely
without any knowledge or notion of the one supreme Gody
his assertion is not true. A notion of a supreme Deity con-
tinued for a long time among the idolatrous Heathens
themselves, and never was entirely extinguished, though
greatly obscured and corrupted. And the same may be ob-
served concerning many of those whom Mr. Hume calls
the savage tribes of America: and indeed idolatry, in its
first beginning, was not an utter casting off the knowledge
and worship of the one true God, but the worshipping him-
in a superstitious manner, and the joining with him, under
various pretences, other objects of worship, to whom at
first they rendered an inferior degree of religious respecty
but at length came to render them that divine adorationf
which was only due to the Supreme.

The most authentic history of the first ages of the world,^
as hath been already hinted, is that of Moses; who is th&

Vol. I, I

66 Idolatry not the first Religion of Mankind. Part. I.

most antient historian, and the most to be depended upon
of any now extant. For as to the extravagant antiquities of
the Chaldeans, the Egyptians, and Chinese, the fabulous-
ness and absurdity of them has been often sufficiently ex-
posed, and has been so very lately, by the learned and in-
genious Mr. Goguet, in his 3d Dissertation at the end of
his 3d tome, De I'Origine des Loix, des Arts, et des Sci-
ences. And from the account given by Moses it appeareth,
that the worship of the one true God was the religion of
the first ancestors of the human race, and that idolatry and
polytheism came in afterwards. And the farther the nations
were removed from the earliest ages, the more they de-
generated from the primitive religion; and the antient and
original traditions became more and more corrupted.

The nations which made the greatest figure in the most
antient times were the Assyrians and Chaldeans, the Per-
sians, Phoenicians, Arabians, and Egyptians; and there is
great reason to think, that among all or most of these the
worship of the one true God was preserved for some age*
after the flood (o). To these might be added the antient
Chinese, according to the accounts given of them by F.
Matthew Riccius and others, and especially by F. Le
Compte, in his memoirs of China. This last-mentioned
author affirms, That the people of China preserved the
knowledge and worship of the one true God, the Lord of
heaven and earth, and the purity of religion among them
for two thousand years. And it must be owned, that there
are some passages in the most antient Chinese books, which,
taken in the most obvious sense, seem to favour this hypo-
thesis. But as this is contradicted by the Chinese them-
selves, who give a different account of the true sense of those
books, as well as by some learned Christians well versed

(o) See Shuckford*s Connect, of sacred and prophane his-
tory, vol. i. p. 282, &c. 303, et seq.

Chap. II. Idolatry nqt thejirst Religion of Mankind, 67

in the Chinese language and literature (/?), I shall not lay
any great stress upon it. As to the antient Persians, they
seem to have been adorers of the one true God in the ear-
liest times. Dr. Hyde thinks they learned this from Noah,
and their great progenitors Shem and Elam: and that
though they afterwards fell into Sabiism, or the worship of
the heavenly bodies, yet they still retained the knowledge
and worship of the Supreme Deity, and that Religion in
several respects was less corrupted among them than among

(/i) The proposidons in Le Compters Memoires relating to
the antient religion of the Chinese, were censured by the supe-
riors of the seminary of foreign missions at Paris, and afterwards
by the faculty of divinity there, in their decisions of Oct. 18,
1700. Some of the Jesuits themselves have also given different
accounts of the antient religion of China; particularly F. Nicho-
las Longobardi, who lived many years in China, and was well
acquainted with their books and learning. The reader may con-
sult his treatise on this subject, which takes up the whole fifth
book of F. Navarette's account of the empire of China. See also
Millar's History of the Propag. of Christ, vol. ii. p. 281, 282,
edit. 3d. As to my own sentiments in this matter, it seems to
me not improbable, that the Chinese as well as the Persians,
and some other eastern nations, had some knowledge of the one
true God among them in the most antient times; especially as
their first rulers and lawgivers seem to have been among the
earliest descendants of Noah. But there is reason to think that
their religion soon began to be corrupted, and that they early
fell into the worship of the heaven, the earth, the elements, the
mountains, rivers, and other parts of nature; to which, at least
considered as animated by the spirits they supposed to be inti-
mately united to them and inseparable from them, they offered
sacrifices, from a very remote antiquity. This, I think, may be
fairly gathered from the acknowledgments of some of those
who are willing to give the most favourable accounts of them.
See the Scientia Sinensis latine exposita, published by four
Jesuits, lib. ii. p. 5 1 . Paris, 1 687.

6^ The Worship of the one true God Part. I.

^any other of the Gentile nations (jf). The Chaldeans and
Assyrians seem to have been among tht- first corrupters of
the t^ue antient religion. It is intimated. Josh. xxiv. 3. that
Terah, Abraham's father, and even Abraham himself, had
been infected with their idolatries. " Thus saith the Lord
God, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood,"
i. e. of the river Euphrates, " in old time: Terah, the fa-
ther of Abraham, and the father of Nachor, and they" (by
whom we are probably to understand Terah, Abraham, and
Nachor) " served other Gods." It can scarce be supposed,
that they were so far corrupted, as intirely to lay aside the
knov/ledge and adoration of the one supreme God. But
they paid also an inferior kind of worship to other deities.
From which however they were afterwards reformed: and
according to a tradition still current among the eastern na-
tions, Abraham endeavoured to promote a reformation
among the Chaldeans. But, if what is said of this matter in
the book of Judith can be depended on, the Chaldeans cast
theni out; so that they were obliged to flee into Mesopo-
tamia, where they sojourned many days (r). From thence,
after Tcrah's death, Abraham, by divine commandment,

(y) There is a noble passage concerning; God produced by
Eusebius"^, from a book ascribed to Zoroaster. If this passage
be genuine, and that this Zoroaster was of so great antiquity as
some suppose him to have been, he lived early in the Patriarch-
al times, and may be supposed to have preserved considerable
remains of the antient primitive religion, as being; not far from
the fountain head. Or, if he was as late as the reign of Darius
Hystaspes, where Dr. Hyde after the Persian and Arabian his-
torians places him, he derived his notions of God, as well as
some other parts of his religion, from the Mosaic and Prophetir
pal w filings, as that very learned writer has shewn.

(r) Judith, chap. v. vers. 6, 7, 8.

f Euseb. Prxp. Evangel, lib. i. cap. 10. p. 42. A,

.Chap. II. the most antient Religion, 69

removed into Canaan. But still some of his brother Na-
chor's family remained in Mesopotamia. And near two
hundred years after this, by the account which is given us
of Laban and his family, it appears, that the knowledge
and worship of the one true God was still retained in those
parts, though mixed with some superstitious and idolatrous
usages. As to the Phoenicians and Canaanites, it must be
acknowledged, that they were over-run with idolatry and
polytheism in the days of Moses: but 400 years before,
when Abraham sojourned among them, no traces of idola-
try are to be found in the account given of them in the
Mosaic history. The contrary rather appeareth from what
is said of Melchisedek, a king in that country, who was
also a priest of the Most High God, and to whom Abraham
himself shewed great respect, and gave the tenth part of the
spoils he had taken. Abimelech, who was likewise a king
in Canaan about the same time, seems to have had a knowr
ledge of the true Qod, and to have been a worshipper of
him. Nor is there the least hint of any difference between
Abraham and the inhabitants of those parts on the account
.of religion, or any disturbance given him on that head.
He seems rather to have been regarded among them as a
Prophet of the Most High, and a person much in the fa-
vour of God. The same may be observed with reg:ird to
the treatment he met with from Pharaoh and the Egyp-
tians. It does not appear, that they were as yet infected
with those idolatries, for which they became afterwards so
famous. And it seems by what is said of Pharaoh, that he
was not absolutely a stranger to the true religion. And
probably it was not entirely corrupted in the times of Jo-
seph, as may be gathered from the particular respect he
shewed to their priests, and from his marrying a priest's
daughter. And if what we are told of the antient inhabi-
tants of Thebais is to be depended upon, they seem to have
preserved for a long time the primitive religion, as consist-

70 The worship of the one true God Part I.

ing in the worship of the one God, the Creator of the world,
whom they worshipped under the name of Kneph, when
the other parts of Egypt were over-run with idolatry (s).
Of the antient religion of the Arabians, the book of Job,
who lived after the days of Abraham, is a noble monu-
ment. It abounds with the sublimest notions of the Divi-
nity, and which are there represented as delivered down
from persons of great antiquity: though it is also there in-
timated, that the idolatrous worship of the heavenly bodies
was then beginning to be introduced in those parts (?).

I would observe by the way, that it may be collected
from the Mosaic accounts, that God was pleased to mani-
fest himself on several occasions to particular persons in
those antient times, as appears not only from the instances
of Abraham, Isaac, (m), Jacob, and Joseph, but of Abime-
lech, Pharaoh, Laban, and others. And there are several
passages in the antient book of Job, which shew that it was
no unusual thing in those days for God to favour the sin-
cere adorers of the Deity with extraordinary discoveries
of his will, for their direction and guidance, and for pre-
serving a sense and knowledge of religion among men (^x).
And it may reasonably be supposed that it was so, not only

(s) Plut. De Isid. et Osir. oper. torn. ii. p. 359. D. Euseb.
Prgep. Evangel, lib. iii. cap. 11. p. 115.

(t) Sec the antiquity of the book of Job vindicated, in the
Second Dissertation at the end of the first tome De TOrigine
des Loix, des Arts, &cc.

(w) We are told that Rebecca went to " enquire of the Lord**
concerning the children which struggled in her womb: which
seems to shew, that there was at that time in Canaan a prophet
or prophets distinct from Abraham and Isaac, to whom persons
might have recourse to know the will of God. And accordingly
the answer she received contained a signal prophecy. Gen. %rv,
22, 23.

{x) Job iv. 12—20. xxxiii. 14, 15, &c.

Chap. II. • the most antient Religion, Tt

in those countries where Job and his friends lived, but
among other nations in those early times, where there were
good and pious persons, fearers of God and workers of
righteousness. And thus probably it continued, till, bv their
increasing idolatries and impieties, the nations rendered
themselves utterly unworthy of those divine communica-
tions, and were in God's just judgment left to walk in their
own ways. It was probably some traditionary accounts of
these things which gave reputation to Oracles: though this^
as well as other advantages they had enjoyed, was greatly
abused to superstition.

The learned Dr. Shuckford observes, that there continued
for a long time among the nations, usages which shew that
there had been an antient universal religion, several traces
of which appeared in the rites and ceremonies which were
observed in religious worship. Such was the custom of sa-
crifices, expiatory and precatory, both the sacrifices of ani-
mals (z/), and the oblations of wine, oil, and the fruits and
products of the earth; altars were erected, and pillars, such
as that set up by Jacob, who poured oil upon it, and thereby
consecrated it to God. These and other things which were
in use among the patriarchs, obtained also among the Gen-
tiles, and were probably intended originally to the ho-

(y) It appears from the instances of Cain and Abel, and after*
wards of Noah, the second father of mankind, that sacrifices were
made use of as a rite of religious worship from the first ages.
And its having spread so universally among the nations, can
scarce be any other way accounted for, than by a most antient
and general tradition derived from the first of the human race.
And good reasons may be offered to make it probable, that it
was not their own invention, but owed its original to a divine in*
stitution.

t2 A Tradition of the Creation of the Woflcf, Sec. VAtit I.-

nour of the true God, but afterwards transferred to idot
deities (2).

To this some learned persons have added, that the seventh
day seems for a long time to have been distinguished among
the nations, and to have had a peculiar sacredness ascribed
to it (r/). Mr. Selden indeed has taken great pains to shew,
that the seventh day mentioned by pagan writers is to be
understood of the seventh day of the month: and that there
is no proof of the religious observance of the seventh day
of the week among the antient Gentiles. Yet it is plain from
that very learned writer's own accounts, that there was a
particular regard paid by them to the number seven, and
that the numbering days by weeks, consisting of seven days,-
was of great antiquit}^, especially among the eastern na-
tions (^). And I think a more probable account cannot be
given of it, than that it was originally derived from a tradi-
tion of the history of the creation, and of a seventh day
set apart, by divine appointment, in commemoration of it:
though, like other antient traditions, it came in process of
time to be neglected, and the true original design of it lost
and forgotten. It cannot be denied however, that there re-
mained for many ages among the nations, some remarkable
vestiges of the history of the creation. It was generally
believed, both that the world had a beginning, and that it
was made out of a chaos or disorderly mass. This is agree-
able to the account given by Moses, not that the nations
generally took it from his writings, but from a tradition

(2) Shockford's Connect, of sacred and prophane history, vol.
i. p. 301, et seq.

(a) Euseb. Praep. Evangel, lib. xiii. cap. 12 et 13.

(b) SelfJen De jure nat. et gent. lib. iii. the 17th and following
chapters to the end of that book.

Chap. II. A Tradition of the Creation of the World, &c. fS

derived from the first ages (c). For, as Dr. Burnet observes,
the remembrance of their original was still in a manner fresh
in the most antient times: " The higher one goes," says the
learned Mons. Goguet, " towards the ages nearest the crea-
tion, the more we find of the visible traces of this great
truth, which the invention and temerity of man in vain
attempt to deface (d),^^ And that some notion of this con-
tinued for a long time among the Gentiles might be shewn
from several testimonies. The learned Dr. Hyde observes
concerning the antient Persians, that from tim.es immemo-
rial they had some knowledge of the history of the creations
and to this he attributes their having retained more of the
knowledge of the true religion than many other nations (^)rf
Strabo informs us from Megasthenes, concerning the Indian
Brachmans, who were remarkable for their adherence ta
antient traditions which they had received from their an-
cestors, that they believed the world had a beginning, and
shall be destroyed, and that God made and governs it; and
that the world was originally formed out of water. And in
this he represents them as agi^eeing with the Greeks {f^
That very antient Greek poet Linus writ a poem on the
cosmogonia or generation of the world, which he began
thus, as Diogenes Laertius informs us,

*' There was a time when all things rose at once/^
And from him Laertius thinks Anaxagoras took his notion,?

(c) Concerning the antiquity and universality of this tradidon
see Burnet's Archaeologia, lib. ii. cap. i. and his Telluiis Theo-
ria Sacra, lib.i. cap. 4. et lib. ii. cap. 7. See also Grot. De Verit.
Relig. Christ, lib. i. sect 16.

{d) De I'Origine des Loix, des Arts, &c. torn. ii. p. 451, 453.-

(e) Hyde Hist. vet. Persar. cap. iii. p. 81.

(/) Strabo, liv. xv. p. 1040. Edit. Amstel.

Vol.. L K

r* The notion of one Supreme God Part I»

that all things were mixed together, and Mind came and
put them in order (^). Those philosophers who endeavoured
to account for the origin of things merely from material and
mechanical causes, without the intervention of an intelligent
cause and author, and the poets who turned the cosmogonia,
or account of the production of the world, into a theogonia,
or an account of the generation of the gods, and confounded
the one with the other, were the great depravers of tne au-
tient tradition. Yet traces of it still remained among the
people, and even among the poets and mythologists them-
selves; a remarkable instance of which we have in Ovid,
who formed his Metamorphoses upon antient traditions,
and the received mythology. He begins his work with an
account of the formation of the world out of a chaos, and
has many things so agreeable to what Moses has said of
it, that one would be apt to think that either he himself, or
the authors whom he followed, had seen or heard of the
Mosaic account of the creation; which, as appears from
Longinus and others, the Pagans were not unacquainted
with. But, supposing this to have been the case, he would
not have made use of it in such a work as the Metamor-
phoses, if it had not been agreeable to the antient received
traditions. And it is observable, that he gives it a Pagaa
turn. And though he supposes one God to have been the
great agent in the formation of the world, yet he at the
same time supposes a plurality of deities, and seems to be
at a loss which of them to ascribe it to.

Besides what has been said of the tradition of the crea-
tion of the world, it may be observed, that some notion of
a supreme Deity was generally preserved among the na-
tions, amidst all their superstitions and idolatries, and was
never utterly extinguished in the Pagan world; and this is

(5-) Laert. in Prooemio, Segm* 4.

Chap. II. never intirely extinguished in the PaganWorld. 7$

a farther proof of the remains of an ancient universal reli-
gion which had obtained from the beginning. There are
several passages in Heathen writers which represent the be-
lief and acknowledgment of a Deity iS having been derived
by a constant tradition from the most remote antiquity.
The author of the book De Mundo, among the works of
Aristotle, calls it " a certain antitnt trar^ition or doctrine
derived to all men from their fathers." *A^^eti6t rtg Ao'yef kxi
wcir^fi ireirti ci*6^u^otf (^h). And before him Plato, speaking
of God's having the beginning, the end, and the middle of
things, and being always accompanied with justice to
punish those that transgress the divine law, represents
this as what antient tradition, o velxuioi AoV«?, testifies (i).
And Plutarch, in his treatise De Isid. et Osir. speaking of
the opinion, that the world is not upheld or carried about
by chance, without understanding, or reason, or a go-
vernor, representeth it as an opinion of the utmost an-
tiquity, w<«^T«tA«/fl5 3<>|«, which had not its original from
any known author, rhv i^x,^" ^^so-TdToi" 'ix>^TA<, and was ge-
nerally spread among the Greeks and Barbarians (Jt).
The most ancient legislators were not the inventors of
it; but finding the notion of a Divinity among the people,
made use of it to give a greater authority to their laws
and institutions. It may be traced up, as was before ob-
served, to the first parents of the human race, to whom it
was communicated by the wise and benign Author of their
beings. And when once this principle was thus com-
municated, the standing evidences of a Deity, open to the
view of mankind in all ages in his wonderful works, must

(A) De Mundo, cap. vi. Aristot. Oper. torn. I. p. 610. Edit.
Paris 1629.

(r) Plat, de Leg. lib. IV. Oper. p. 600. G. Edit. Lugd. 1590.
{k) Plut. Oper. torn. II. p. 369. B. Edit. FrancOf. 1620.

fS The notion of one Supreme God Part I,

have contributed to keep up the idea of it among the
nations. And though it must be acknowledged, that they
did not make that use of those discoveries which they
might and ought to have done, yet the works of God,
which were continually before their eyes, had undoubtedly
a tendency to preserve some impressions of a Deity upon
their minds, which could never be absolutely erased. I shall
produce a few testimonies to this purpose among many
which might be mentioned. Zaleucus^ the Locrian^ in his
celebrated prooemium or preface to his laws, saith, that
*' all those who inhabit the city and country ought first of
all to be persuaded of the existence of the Gods, especially
when they look up to heaven, and contemplate the world,
^nd the orderly and beautiful disposition of things. For
these are not the works of chance or of men. And that they
ought to worship and honour them, as the authors of all the
real good things which befall us (/)."" It is easy," saith
Clinias, the Cretan, one of Plato's dialogists, in his tenth
book of laws, " to prove this truth, that there are gods."
And when the Athenian hospes asks, " How is it proved?"
He answers, ''In the first place, the earth, the sun, the
ptars, and '■^ %v^frct.niC', the whole complexion and constitu-
tion of things, the well ordered variety of seasons, dis-
tinguished by years and months, shew it: as also the con^
sent of both Greeks and Barbarians, who all agree that
there are Gods (m)." Cicero has many passages concerning

Q) This excellent Fragment has been preserved to us by
Stobaeus. Serm. xiii. The reader may see it at large quoted and
elegantly translated by the learned author of the Divine Lega-
tion of Moses: who has also well vindicaied the genuineness of it
against the objections of a famous critic Div. Leg. vol. I. book
ii. sect. 3d. p. 1 12. et seq. et 127, 128. 4th edit.

(m) Plato Pe Leg. lib. x. Oper. p. 664. Ficin. Edit. Lugd,
1590,

Chap. II. never intirely extinguished in the Pagan World, 77

the proofs of a Deity, as being obvious from the works of
nature. " Who," says he, " is so blind, that when he looks
up to the heavens, does not perceive that there are Gods?"
Quis est tarn csecus, qui cum suspexerit in coelos, non esse
Deos sentiat (w)? And in his proem or introduction to his
laws he represents him as not worthy of the name of a
man, " whom the orderly courses of the stars, the vicissi-
tudes of days and nights, the distributions and temperature
of the seasons, and the various things produced out of the
earth for our use and enjoyment, do not compel to be
grateful?" Qutm vero astrorum ordines, quem dierum et
noctium vicissitudines, quem mensium temperatio, quemque
ca quae gignuntur nobis ad fruendum, non gratum esse co-
gant, hunc hominem omnino numerare qui deceat (o)? And
elsewhere, having mentioned several of the works of na-
ture and providence, he asks, " How is it possible for us,
when we behold these and numberless other things of the
same kind, to entertain a doubt, but that there presideth
over them some Maker of so great a work, if these things
had a beginning, or a moderator and governor, if, as
Aristotle supposes, they existed from eternity," Hsec igitur
et alia innumcrabilia cum cernimus, possumusne dubitare
quin his prsesit aliquis vel Effector, si hsec nata sunt ut
Platoni videtur, vel si semper fuerint, ut Aristoteli placet,
moderator tanti operis et muneris (/?). Plutarch, in his trea-
tise De Placit. Philos. lib. I, cap. vi. reckons the observa-
tion of the heavenly bodies, their influences, the harmony
of their motions, and the effects which they produce, to be
one of the principal things which had led men into the no-
tion of a Deity: though it must be owned, that he there

(n) Orat. Haruspic. Respons. n. 9.

(o) De Legib. lib II. cap. vii. p. 95, 96. Edit. Davis, 2d.

(Ji) Tuscul. Quaest. lib, I. cap. xxviii. p, 68. Edit. Davis, 4to,

yg The notion of one Supreme God Part I.

speaks of men's acknowledging a number of gods; among
which he reckons the heaven, the earth, the sun, moon, and
stars (^). I think it appears with great evidence from the
several passages which have been produced, to which
others might be added, that in the heathen world men were
sensible of the force of the argument which is drawn from
the beauty and order of the works of nature, to the ex-
istence and perfections of a Deity. But it is to be observed,
that though they generally agreed that the formation of
things was not owing to chance; yet in most of the passages
here referred to, they do not argue from the works of na-
ture to one only supreme Cause, but seem rather to infer
a plurality of deities or intelligent causes, as the authors of
this system. And many passages there are of this kind
among the antients. It is also observable, as I shall shew
distinctly in another place, that when the Pagan authors,
who lived before the times of Christianity, urge the con-
sent of nations against the atheists in proof of a Deity, they
generally speak of Gods in the plural, and not of one God
only. Yet, notwithstanding their polytheism, and the many-
gods they acknowledged and worshipped, which was a
great and most culpable defection from the true primitive
religion, they still retained in some degree the idea of one
supreme Divinity. But it must be owned, that it seemed at
length to dwindle into a notion of one God, superior in
power and dignity to the rest, but not of a different kind
from the other divinities they adored, whom they looked
upon to be really and truly Gods as well as he, and sharers
in the sovereign dominion with him. That this was the
general popular notion will appear in the farther progress
of this work.

It is an observation of the learned Dr. Cudworth, that

{q) Plut. Oper. torn. II. p. 880.

Chap. II. never intirely extinguished iyi the PaganWor Id, 79

though the poets were the great depravers of the true
primitive religion and theology among the Pagans, yet
they kept up the antient tradition of one supreme Deity.
Amidst the crowds of divinities they mention, there is still
running through all their writings the notion of One Su-
preme; of whom they speak in the most exalted terms,
and to whom they ascribe the highest divine attributes,
and which are really peculiar to the one true God; as that
he is omnipotent, that he seeth all things and governeth
the whole world. They often call him the Father Al-
mighty, the Father of gods and men. They describe him
as the Universal Monarch who ruleth men and the gods
too. Several passages might be produced to this purpose
from Homer and others of the Greek poets, who in this
are followed by the Latins. The reader may particularly
consult Plautus in the prologue to his Rudcns, ver. 9.
Virgil, -L-Eneid. lib. x. ver. 2, et 18. Horace, ode xii. lib. i.
et lib. iii. ode iv. Other testimonies are produced from the
poets by that learned writer (r). Yet it cannot be denied,
that they confounded him whom they represented as the
Supreme God, with that Jupiter of whom they told such
indecent stories, and thus corrupted this great principle
of all religion. This however may be gathered from their
writings, that the notion of one Supreme Divinity was
still preserved among them, and never utterly extinguish-
ed amidst all the confusions and perversions of the Pagan
theology.

I do not now enquire into the sentiments of the antient
philosophers concerning the one supreme God. These will
be distinctly considered in a proper place. I shall only ob-
serve at present, that many of them contributed not a little

(r) Cudworth's Intel. System, chap. iv. sect. 19. p. 355, et
seq. 2d edit.

30 Tradition of one Supreme God Part L

to corrupt this great fundamental article of religion; though
some of them were of a noble character^ and said excellent
things concerning the Deity, at the same time that they join-
ed in the public polytheism and idolatry.

If from the more polite and civilized parts of the Heathen
world, we proceed to enquire how the case stood with the
nations which are usually looked upon as illiterate and bar-
barous, we shall find that many of them had also a notion
of one supreme Divinity; and even some of those, from
whom one would have least expected it, seem to have pre-
served the antient tradition in this respect more clear, than
the nations among whom learning and science flourished.

It was for a long time thought, that the Hottentots, or
nations which inhabit the countries about the Cape of Good
Hope, had no notion of God at all: but the latest and best
accounts assure us, that they believe one supreme Being.
F. Tachart tells us, that in conference with some of the
most intelligent Hottentots, he found that they believed there
is a God who made heaven and earth, and causeth it to thun-
der and rain, &c. but did not think themselves obliged to
worship him. This is confirmed by other writers of credit,
particularly by Mr. Kolben, whose accounts of the Hotten-
tots are most exact, and the most to be depended upon. He
took particular pams, whilst he was at the Cape of Good
Hope, where he lived several years, to inform himself of
their religion and customs; and affirms, that they believe a
Supreme Being, the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all
things that are therein, through whose omnipotence all things
live and move; and that this Being is endued with unsearch-
able attributes and perfections; giving him a name which in
their language signifieth the God of Gods. This may seem to
argue high ideas of the Divinity. But then it is to be observ-
ed, that they say of this Supreme God, that he is a good
man, doing no harm to any body, and dwells far above the

Chap. II. amongst the most barbarous Nations, 81

moon; and that they pay no distinct worship to him, though
they do to the moon. They also worship an evil being, whom
they look upon to be the father of mischief, that they may
avert his malice {s). Considering their character, it can
hardly be supposed that their notions of a Supreme Being,
as far as they are just and right, are the effect of their own
reasoning, to which in matters of religion they are observ-
ed to have an utter aversion; but must have proceeded
from the remains of antient tradition, derived to them from
their ancestors, of whose opinions and customs they are
very tenacious. There are other old traditions among them,
some remarkable instances of which are mentioned by that
author.

The same observation may be made concerning the Ne-
groes in Guinea. We are told, that they generally acknow-
ledge one Supreme Almighty Being; but believe he is too
far above us to take notice of poor mortals: and therefore
they pay him no manner of adoration; neither praying to him,
nor giving him thanks for any thing: but pray and sacrifice
to a multitude of other deities, some of which are extremely
ridiculous (t).

It appears from both antient and modern accounts of In-
dia, that there are several tribes and nations there, who ac-
knowledge and worship one Supreme Being, as the original
and productive Cause of all things: but that this God does
not concern himself immediately with things of little mo-
ment, but has created other gods to be his Vicegerents;
and these again have their subordinate gods, of whom they

(s) See Kolben's Account of the Cape of Good Hope. English
translation. Vol I. chap. viii.

{t) See Salmon's account of Guinea in his Modern History,
from Bosman and other authors.

Vol. I. L

82 The Worship of the Supreme God Part L

suppose an amazing number, to each of whom worship is
due (w).

The people of Ceylon in the East Indies, as Mr. Knox
informs us, who lived there twenty years, worship many
gods, and even evil spirits, lest they should be destroyed by
them; yet they acknowledge one God to be the Supreme,
whom they call by a name which signifies the Creator of
heaven and earth; but that he sends forth inferior gods, to
whom he hath committed the care of affairs (x). Of these
there are many images, and they have priests and temples
dedicated to them, but none to the Supreme.

As to the people of America, Acosta tells us, " That
this is common to almost all the Barbarians, that they ac-
knowledge a God Supreme over all things, and perfectly
good:" and he adds, "That therefore they ought to be care-
fully taught who is that supreme and eternal Author of all
things, whom they ignorantly worship. — Hoc commune apud
omnes pene barbaros est, ut Deum quidem omnium rerum
supremum et summe bonum fateantur — Igitur et quis ille
summus idemque sempiternus rerum omnium opifex, quern
ignoranter colunt, per omnia doceri debent (2/)." And Lafe-

(u) Narrative of the Danish missionaries, part 2d, p. 7, et
seq. And Phillips's account of the religion, &c. of the people of
Malabar.

(a?) This notion of God's not concerning himself with the af-
fairs of this world, but committing them wholly to inferior dei-
ties, obtained very generally among the Pagans, and was a prin-
cipal cause of the idolatry which prevailed among them. For
hence it come to pass, that in process of time their regards and
worship were almost wholly confined to these inferior deities,
upon whom they thought they immediately depended; whilst the
Supreme God was regarded as little more than an ideal being,
and almost intirely neglected.

(j/) Jos. Acosta De procuranda Indorum salute, lib. v. p. 475,
as cited by Cudworth. But though they acknowledged the chief

Chap. II. paid to Idol Deities, 8.3

teau in his Moears des Sauvages observes, that they acknow-
ledge one Supreme Being or Spirit: though he adds, that
they confound him with the sun, whom they call the great
spirit, the author and master of life (z). I believe this is true
of many of those savages, but still it shews they had a notion
of one Supreme Deity, though they misapplied it to the sun.
Some of the Americans however seem to have had a no-
tion of a Supreme Deity above the sun. Garcilasso de la
Vega says, that the most antient inhabitants of Peru, before
the Incas came among them, and whom he represents as
extremely rude and uncultivated, yet acknowledged one
Supreme God, whom they called Pacha Camack; and said,
that it was He that gave life to all things, and sustained
and preserved the universe, but that as he was invisible,
and they did not see him, they could not know him: and
therefore to him they seldom erected temples, or offered
sacrifices; though they shewed their veneration for him by
bowing their head, and lifting up their eyes, when his sa-
cred name was mentioned. One temple however was erect-
ed to him, in a valley called the valley of Pacha Camack,
which was standing when the Spaniards first came into
those parts. The Incas made them worship the sun from
political views: in consequence of which Pacha Camack
became in a great measure neglected. We are told also
concerning some of the inhabitants of Florida, that they
worship one God, the creator of all things, whom they call
Okee: their high priests offer sacrifice to him; but they be-

God to be very good, many of them were principally solicitous
to worship an evil being or beings, for fear of their doing them
mischief.

(z) So we find in a passage, which I shall afterwards cite from
Macrobius, that the civilized Roman and Greek Pagans, in their
solemn acts of devotion to the sun, called him the" spirit of the
world, the power of the world, the light of the world.

84 The Worship of the Supreme God Part I.

lieve he minds not human affairs himself, but commits the
government of them to other deities, whom they therefore
worship, especially the sun and moon.

Thus it appears that there are traces of the belief of one
Supreme Deity among many different nations in the several
parts of the world, and even among people which are ac-
counted the most barbarous; and this can hardly be sup-
posed to be merely owing to the force of their own rea-
soning, destitute as they are of learning and improvement.
It is most natural to ascribe it to the remains of an antient
universal religion, which obtained from the beginning, and
was derived from the first ancestors of the human race. It
must be owned, that there have been and are other nations,
among whom this great article of the antient religion ap-
pears to have been almost entirely lost, and who acknow-
ledged and worshipped many gods, without seeming to
have had any distinct notion of one God that is absolutely
supreme above all the rest. But not to insist upon this at
present, I would observe, that even in those nations which
still retained the notion of a Supreme Deity, this venerable
/tradition, though highly agreeable to reason, came at length,
through the negligence and corruption of mankind, to be
amazingly perverted and depraved. It was covered and
overwhelmed, so as to be scarce discernible under a mon-
strous load of superstitions and idolatries. Some nations
which acknowledged a Supreme Being rendered him no
worship at all; in others his worship was so mixed and
confounded with that of idol deities, that scarce any traces
of it appear in their worship, in their religion, and in their
laws. The great number of divinities which were introdu-
ced from time to time, and the worship of which was esta-
blished by public authority, turned off their attention and
regards from the one true God, so that he was in a great
measure neglected and overlooked, whilst they paid that
worship to vain idols which was due to him alone. Mr.

Chap. II. paid to Idol Deities. 85

Locke therefore had just reason to say, that "in the crowds
of wrong notions and invented rites, the world had almost
lost sight of the only true God («)." Lord Bolingbroke
makes the same observation, that " they lost sight of him,
and suffered imaginary beings to intercept the worship due
to him alone (^)»" Allowing the most favourable represen-
tations that can possibly be made of the state of the heathen
world, consistently with truth and fact, the darkness and
confusion the people were under with regard to the know-
ledge and worship of the one true God was gross and de-
plorable to an astonishing degree; so that they stood in
great need of an extraordinary divine interposition to re-
cover them from it. This is what I shall now proceed to
shew. And it will be proper to take some notice of the
principal steps by which this grand defection from the right
knowledge and worship of the only true God was brought
about, and came to prevail so generally among the nations.
And in carrying on this enquiry I shall have a particular re-
gard to those Pagan nations which have been most admired
for their wisdom, and among whom learning and philosophy
seemed to make the greatest progress.

(a) Locke's Reason, of Christ, in his works, Vol. II. p. 530,
531. Edit, third.

(b) Bol. Works, Vol. IV. p. 80, et461. Edit. 4to.

8S The Worship of the heavenly Bodies Part I.

CHAPTER III.

The first corruption of religion, and deviation from the knowledge and wot'ship
of the one true God, was the worship of heaven and the heavenly hodies. This
the most antient kind of idolatrj. It hegan very early, and spread very gene-
rally among the Heathen nations.

i HE most antient idolatry, and which was probably the
first deviation from the worship of the one true God, seems
to, have been the worship of heaven and the heavenly bodies,
the sun, moon, and stars. Diodorus Siculus acquaints us,
" That the most antient people of Egypt, looking up to the
world above them, and the Nature of the universe, and
being struck with astonishment and admiration, supposed
the sun and moon to be the eternal and first or principal
gods." And he afterwards adds, that " they supposed that
these gods govern the whole world (c)." This passage is
is cited by Eusebius, who also observes concerning the an-
tient Phoenicians, that «J ^e^uroi <pv<riKot) the first natural philo-
sophers among them, or the first who professedly applied
themselves to enquire into the nature of things, "looked
upon the sun and moon, and other wandering stars, and the
elements, and the things that were connected with these, to
be the only gods." Thus, instead of being led by contemplat-
ing the wonderful works of God, to adore him the glorious
author, these searchers into nature worshipped the works

(c) T»5 Kecr AtyvTrrov ecvB-^aiTriii to veiXetih ytvef*ivii9 ecvetZx'r^xvrcti
lii Tov xoa-fiovy Kxi rhv tZv oXav <Pv<rivj KotrctvXtcyivrxi t6 kx} ^xvfcxa-xv'
ixi v^oyx^iT* Uixi ^i>(i xihiiig rt xxi Tr^ara? tov re «A<o» KXt rh tri^KV^v

T8T«S Se T»$ B-iSi v!pkxv}xi T09 O-VfiTTXVTX KOTfiOV ^ICtKitV. Dlod. SlCUl.

Ub. I. Euseb. Prsepar. Evangel, lib. 1. cap. 9. ab initio.

Chap. III. the most antient Idolatry. 87

themselves as Gods. Trusting to their own wisdom, they
began to neglect the antient tradition which Moses lays
down as the foundation of all religion, that in the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth. What has been said
of the Egyptians and Phoenicians holds equally concerning
the Assyrians and Chaldeans, whom many suppose to have
been the first that rendered divine worship to the heavenly
bodies. It is not however probable, that any of these nations
fell all at once into the grossest kind of this idolatry. They
began very early to apply themselves to the study of astro-
nomy, and to make observations on the stars, their motions
and influences. Among them judicial astrology had its rise.
By indulging their speculations they came to regard them
as living intelligent beings, a notion which afterwards ob-
tained very generally among mankind ((f). At first probably

F (fl?) The learned Dr. Campbell is very positive, that «' beyond
all doubt, man, if left to himself, without instruction, will con-
ceive the heavenly bodies to be all animated; and that by inward
life and power they perform all their motions.*" And again, he
says, " I cannot help being assured, that mankind, left wholly
to themselves, having no supernatural revelation, will not only
apprehend the heavenly bodies are animals, but will confine
their thoughts, their hopes and fears, to these superior beings,
upon whom they judge, by experience, they depend; and will have
no notion, no conception of an invisible Being, infinitely greater,
who is over all, God blessed for everf" He expi^esses himself to
the same purpose in other places, and thinks this is the most
natural way of accounting for their original idolatry. It appears
to me very probable, that men began very early to look upon the
sun, moon, and stars to be animated beings; and that this, with
the consideration of their influences on this lower world, was
what principally gave rise to the first and most antient idola-

* Campbell's Necessity of Revelation, p. 185,.18G. >
t Ibid. p. 211. and p. 393. '

€8 The Worship of the heavenly Bodies Part I.

they might consider them in a subordination to the Supreme,
as the most glorious ministers of the Most High, and to
whom the administration of things was chiefly committed;
to whom therefore they paid a subordinate worship. But they
came afterwards to regard them as the principal deities,
who had an universal dominion, and on whom mankind had

try. But I cannot carry it so far as to pronounce with this learn-
ed writer, that men, if left to themselves, would, " beyond all
doubt," conceive the heavenly bodies to be all animated, and to
perform all their motions by an inward life and power; and that
it would be as natural for them to look upon the stars to be liv-
ing beings, as to believe that the animals they see about them,
men, birds, beasts, &c. are living beings. I should think that
their constant unvaried motions, so different from the spontane-
ous motions of animals, would rather lead men to conclude, that
they did not move by an Inward life and power of their own. Or,
supposing men to regard them as living beings, it would not ne-
cessarily follow, that they could not raise their views beyond
them to an invisible Deity. They might still look upon them to
be the creatures and subjects of the Supreme; especially consi-
dering that, as hath been already shewn, the notion of the Su-
preme Being, who created heaven and earth, had been commu-
nicated to mankind from the beginning. There have been
Christians, who believed the stars to be animated. So did the
famous Origen, who believed them to be endued by God with
reason and wisdom, and yet did not think they ought to be wor-
shipped, but God only, who made them to be what they are, and
gave them light and understanding — and that the sun, moon, and
other stars, all join with just men in praising God, and his only
begotten Son*. The same may be said of that learned Rabbi
Maimonides, who asserts, that the celestial orbs are intelligent
and rational animals, which worship, praise, and celebrate their
Creator and Lord. And he represents other Jewish doctors as of
the same opinionf.

* Origen cont. Cels. lib. V. p. 237, 238.
\ Maimon. More Nevoch. part ii. cap. 5.

Chap. III. the most antient Idolatry. 89

their chief dependence. Thus was introduced a plurality of
deities; and the knowledge and worship of the only true
God came to be in a great measure neglected and lost. Or,
if they paid a greater worship to one God as superior to
the rest, it was the sun. This kind of idolatry soon spread
among the nations. Maimonides tells us concerning the an-
tient Zabians, who, he says, had filled a great part of the
earth, that they held, that there is no God beside the stars:
that they are all deities; but that the sun is the great or chief
god: and that the highest notion they formed of God was,
that he is the spirit or soul of the celestial orbs (e). In like
manner Philo Biblius, the translator of Sanchoniathon's
Phoenician History, tell us concerning the antient inhabi-
tants of Phoenicia, that " they accounted this god, speaking
of the sun, to be the only Lord of Heaven" — " T^to? y«g
S-«ov Ivofii^ot fiovov argflsvS kv^iov" And therefore he adds, that
they called him Baal Samen, which in the Phoenician lan-
guage has that signification {/)» The learned Mr. Sale, in
his preliminary discourse to his translation of the Koran,
observes from the Arabian writers, that the antient Arabs,
from the rising and setting of the stars, by long experience,
observed what changes happen in the air, and, at length
came to ascribe divine power to them. And it appears from
a passage in the antient book of Job, that in his time,
which was probably before Moses, the worship of the hea-
venly bodies was practised in those parts of Arabia where
he lived: though it is likely there were still many among
them, as well as Job himself, who regarded it as a great
iniquity to be punished by the judge, and as a denying the
God that is above. Job xxxi. 26, 27, 28. As to the antient
Persians, though Dr. Hyde will not allow what Herodotus

(e) Maimon. More Nevoch. part iii. cap. 29.
(/) Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel, lib. I. cap. lo.
Vol. I. M

90 The Worship of the heavenly Bodies Part I.

affirms, that they worshipped the sun, moon, and stars, and
the elements, all along from the beginning, yet he acknow-
ledges that they fell very early into the worship of the hea-
venly bodies, even before the days of Abraham; though he
affirms, that they were afterwards reclaimed from it, and
that they all along still retained the knowledge and worship
of the one Supreme God. But whether this account may be
depended upon or not, certain it is, that the idolatrous wor-
ship of the heavenly bodies had made a considerable pro-
gress in the world before the days of Moses, as is evident
from his writings. And it is most expressly prohibited in
his law.

With respect to the antient Grecians, the testimony of
Plato in his Cratylus has been often quoted. " The first in-
habitants of Greece," says he, " appear to me, to have
esteemed these only to be Gods, as many of the Barbarians
now do, the sun, and moon, and the earth, and stars, and
heaven (^)." The same thing is signified by Aristotle, when
he saith, that " it hath been delivered down to us by the
antients and those of old times, both that these (viz. the
stars) are gods, and that the Divinity eomprehendeth whole
or universal nature (A)." And he observes, that " all the
other things were added afterwards, for the better persua-
sion of the multitude, and for public utility, to keep up a
reverence for the laws: such as, the representing the gods
to be of human form, or like to other animals, and other
things of that kind." When the Greeks grew in learning

{g) <S>xtic*Ttti f^oi 01 TT^arot reSv ivS^aTroiv ray TFt^i rn^ 'EAX«3«6

yhv^Ktci i5-^«, Kxt ii^etvh. Plat. Oper. Ficin. Edit. Lugdun. p. 263.
B.

(//) n»^x}i^orect vTTo rav u^y^xlut xxi •vrxXxiS*, art B-ect, n u<rn
cvroi) Kxi vi^i'i^fi TO ^toM T>]v oAjjv (pv<riv» Ari^t Metaph. lib. xir.
cap. 8. Oper. torn. II. p. 1003. Edit. Paris 1529.

Chap. III. spread generally among the Nations, 91

and politeness, they were still ecj^ually addicted to the wor-
ship of the heavenly bodies, as their rude ancestors had
been, with this difference, that, as Aristotle intimates in the
passage now referred to, they added other grosser idolatries
and superstitions to it. It was for affirming the stars to be
inanimate bodies, which was looked upon to be a denying
their divinity, and for saying that the sun is a body of fire,
and the moon an habitable earth, that Anaxagoras was ac-
cused at Athens for impiety; and, as some authors tell us,
fined five talents, and banished (i). And though Plutarch
seems to deny this, yet he owns in his life of Pericles, that
Pericles took care to send Anaxagoras away from Athens,
from an apprehension that he would be in great danger of
being condemned by the Athenians if he staid there. Even
the great Socrates himself censured him, as guilty of pre-
sumption and arrogance (i). And Plato, in the beginning of
his tenth book of laws, charges that opinion as leading to
atheism, and a denial of divine providence: and he himself
frequently prescribes the worship of the stars, which seem
to be the principal divinities he recommends to the people.
The other philosophers, and especially the Stoics, were of
the same sentiments. Balbus the stoic, in Cicero's second
book De Natura Deorum, when he argues for a providence,
takes particular pains to prove, that the stars are gods, and
to be worshipped as such. Plutarch gives an authentic testi-
mony of the general opinion and practice of the Pagans in
his time, and plainly expresses his own approbation of it. In
his answer to Colotes, the Epicurean, he reckons it among the
things which are most firmly believed, and which cannot
without great absurdity be denied, " That there i^ a provi-

(i) Diog. Laert. in Anaxagora, lib. ii. segm. 12, 13, 14.

(Jc) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. iv. cap. 7. segm. 6, 7. p. 351.
Edit. Oxon. 1749.

92 The Worship of the heavenly Bodies Part I.

dence, and that the sun and moon are animated; whom,"
says he, " all men worship, and to whom they offer up sa-
crifices and prayers— ^0/5 TTotyTfj AV^^ufroi %ii<ri,x»t 9r§»o-cy;|/ovT«i
text (ri^6vrxt (/)."

To this species of idolatry may also be referred their wor-
shipping and ascribing divinity to the whole compass of the
heaven or circumambient sether, which many of them
esteemed to be the chief god; not indeed considered merely
as inanimate, but as animated with a soul, of which all the
heavenly bodies are partakers. Remarkable to this purpose
is that passage of Ennius, preserved by Cicero. " Aspice
hoc sublime candens, quem invocant omnes Jovem. — Be-
hold this resplendent height of heaven, which all men in-
voke as Jove." To this may be added a passage from
Euripides, which Cicero translates thus:

" Vides sublime fusum, immoderatum aethera,
" Qui terram tenero circumjeclu amplecdtur.
** Hunc summum habeto divum, hunc perhibeto Jovem. —

" Thou seest the high unmeasurable expanse of sether,
which encompasseth the earth in its tender embrace. This
regard as the chief of the gods, celebrate this as Jupiter (w)."
The famous stoic Chrysippus argued, as Cicero informs us,
that he whom men call Jupiter is the sether. " Chrysippus
disputavit sethera esse eum quem homines appellant Jovem."
That great naturalist Pliny says, " It is reasonable to believe,
that this world, and that which by another name is called
heaven, which encompasseth and governeth all things, is
God, eternal, immense, and which was never made, nor
shall be destroyed (n). — Mundum et hoc quod nomine alio

(/) Plut. Oper. torn. ii. p. 1 123. Edit. Francof. 1620.
(m) De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 2 et 25.
(n) Hist. Nat. lib. ii. cap. 1.

Chap. III. spread generally among the Nations. 93

coelum appellare libuit, cujus circumflexu reguntur omnia,
numen esse credi par est, eternum, immensum, neque geni-
tum, neque interiturum." But it is to be observed, that
when they ascribed Divinity to the heavens, it is to be
understood, not exclusively of, but as having a particular
regard to the heavenly bodies, and especially the chief of
them the sun. To him they ascribed the attributes peculiar
to the one true God. Thus Ulysses in Homer saith of the
sun, that '* he seeth and knoweth all things. — TlctvT kpc^u kx)
frecvT* i-x-ecKHn (o)." The Orphic verses, which whether com-
posed by Orpheus himself or not, give in many instances
a just representation of the antient Pagan theology, describe
him by the most glorious epithets, as " having an eternal
eye that sees all things — vecvh^Kig 'i^m amiioi o^^*;" and as
*' the eye of righteousness, and the light of life — lf4,fAci, ^ikccI'
oflryvijj, ^»35 (^2^** Mcnandcr declares, that men ought to wor-
ship him as v^Srov B-tm — the first or chief of the gods (/?).
Plotinus and those Pythagoreans who lived a considerable
time after Christianity had made some progress in the world,
and who were very clear in their acknowledgments of the
one Supreme God, and pretended to an extraordinary de-
gree of refinement, yet pleaded for the divinity and worship
of the sun and stars, and for offering up prayers to them.
The emperor Julian has a pompous oration in honour of the
sun, whom he represents as the parent of mankind, who
generates our bodies, and sends down our souls, and bestows
upon us all the good things we enjoy — and concludes with
supplicating to him for peace and safety here, and for joy
and happiness hereafter (^). Macrobius, who flourished un-

(o) Odyss. fc. vers. 321.

(/2) Apud Campbell. Necess. Revel, p. 203. 295.

(q) Orat. 4.

94 The Worship of the heavenly Bodies Part I,

der the emperors Honorius and Theodosius, and who was
himself a Pagan (rj, takes a great deal of pains to prove that
the sun was the one universal deity, who was adored under
several names and characters. This plea he manages with
a variety of learning in the person of Vettius Prsetextatus,
one of great eminency among the Pagans of that time,
whom he represents as the president of all the sacred rites,
and intimately acquainted with their theology; "sacrorum
omnium praesul — sacrorum unice conscius." See the first
book of his Saturnalia the 17th and following chapters.
And he concludes with observing, that the priests and di-
vines were wont to use this prayer in their devotions or
holy ceremonies: " O almighty or all-governing sun, the
spirit of the world, the power of the world, the light of the
world — 'HeX/g frecvTOKp«c']of, xoTjkcn 7rvevf*Ui KtTfAS ivvccf^is, tcoTfza <pa§."
And he adds a quotation from some verses ascribed to Or-
pheus, in which the sun is called Jupiter and Bacchus, the
father of sea and land; and the generation of all things is
attributed to him (s).

The same Macrobius acquaints us, that the Assyrians
gave the name Adad to him whom they worshipped as the
highest and greatest God: that this name being interpreted
signifies One, and that by him they understood the sun.
" Assyrii Deo quern summum maximumque venerantur,
Adad nomen dederunt: ejus nominis interpretatio signifi-
cat Unus. Hunc igitur ut potentissimum adorant Deum;
sed subjungunt eidem Deam nomine Adargatin, omnemque
potestatem cunctarum rerum his duobus attribuunt, solem

(r) See this clearly proved by Mr. Masson, in his Tract on
the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem.

(«) Maci-ob. Satumal. lib. i. cap. 23. p. 217. Edit. Lend.
1694.

CiiAP. IIL spread generally among' the Nations. 05

terramque intelligentes (f)." It appears from Philostratus,
that the Indian Brachmans, who were extolled by Appol-
lonius as far excelling all the wise men upon earth, made
the sun the chief object of their worship, and were them-
selves called the priests of the sun. As to the Chinese, it is
said to have been the custom from the time of their first
emperor Fohi, for their emperors to sacrifice to heaven and
earth. And F. Navarette, who lived many years in China,
and was well acquainted with their language, religion, and
learning, looks upon it as a certain thing, that the Chinese
have from a remote antiquity worshipped the sun, moon,
and stars; and that they knew nothing more noble than the
material heaven which we behold. He adds, that " so say
their books, and their learned men own it (w)." Tavernier
in his account of Tonquin, which was formerly under the
dominion of China, though for some hundreds of years past
it has had kings of its own, relates, that they sacrifice to
the sun, moon, and other planets; and have four principal
gods, and one goddess. We are told, that the greater part
of the inhabitants of the vast Eastern Tartary worship a
plurality of deities; and particularly the sun, moon, and the
four elements {x)» Herodotus affirms concerning all the Li-
byans, that they sacrificed only to the sun and moon: and
both he and Strabo say of the Massagetse, that they esteem-
ed the sun to be the only deity, and sacrificed a horse ta
him (z/). The sun was also the principal deity of the
Mexicans and Peruvians in America, to whom they erected
temples, and offered sacrifices, and paid their most solemn
acts of worship: and if some had a notion of a God higher

(0 Macrob. Saturnal. lib. i. cap. 23. p. 217. Edit. Lond. 1694.
(u) See Navarette's Account of China in Churchill's ColleC"
tion of Travels, 8cc. vol. i. p. 74. 84, 85. et ibid. p. 18S, 189.
(x) Grimston's States and Empires, p. 70 1 .
(y) Herod, lib. iv. cap. 188. Strabo Geogr. lib, xL

9S The Worship of the heavenly Bodies Part I,

than the sun, they looked upon him to be too far above
them, and therefore had little regard to him in their devo-
tions. I might instance also in the antient inhabitants of
Terra Firma, in America, of New Granada, and His-
paniola, the Canary and Philippine Islands, the Gallans, a
people bordering on Abyssinia, and several other African
nations; as also the ancient Gauls, Germans, and other na-
tions in Europe (z).

Thus it appears that this kind of idolatry, which the
scripture calls the worship of the host of heaven, hath
spread generally through the Pagan nations in Europe,
Asia, Africa, and America, not only among the savage and
illiterate, but the most learned and polite. Human wisdom
and philosophy, instead of reclaiming them from it, rather
devised plausible colours and pretences to palliate or justify
it. And it is owing principally to the light of the Jewish
and Christian revelation, that this idolatry is now banished
from so many nations among whom it antiently prevailed.
Lord Herbert, who endeavours to represent the Pagan re-
ligion in the most favourable light, after having, in the
fourth and following chapters of his book De Religione
Gentilium, given an account of the worship paid by the
Pagans, ancient and modern, to the heavens, the sun, moon,
and stars, and which he represents to be universal, apolo-
gizes for it at the end of his eighth chapter, by saying, that
they worshipped the stars to the honour of the Supreme
God. " Omnes stellas, sed in summi Dei honorem, certe
olim fuisse, et etiamnum esse cultas, concludimus." This
indeed was pretended by some of the philosophers, and par-
ticularly by those of them who stood up as advocates for

(z) The reader may consult, concerning several of the na-
tions here mentioned, Millar's Hist, of the Propag. of Christi-
anity, vol. ii.

Chap. III. spread generally among the Nations, 97

Paganism after Christianity had made its appearance in the
world; as if it could tend to the honour of the only true
God to render that religious worship and adoration to the
works which he hath made, which is due to him the glori-
ous Author. That noble writer himself, in his 3d chapter,
after mentioning the names of the deity which were in use
among the Hebrews, and shewn that those names and titles
were also used among the Gentiles, owns that the Hebrews
appropriated those names and tides to the one Supreme
God superior to the sun, but that the Gentiles understood
by him no other than the sun itself. " Quamvis superius
sole numen sub hisce nominibus intellexerunt Hebraei so-
lem neque aliud numen intellexerunt Gentiles*'' He in-*
sinuates indeed that the worship paid to the sun was sym-
bolical, rendered to the sun as the most glorious image and
symbol of the Divinity. And I do not deny, but that this
might be the notion which some persons of sublime specu-
lation entertained of it. But it does not appear, that the
vulgar Pagans, who worshipped the sun and stars, carried
their refinements so far. His Lordship himself expresses a
doubt, that the people did not sufficiently understand that
symbolical worship. " Symbolicum ilium cultum baud satis
forsan intellexit («)." And I think from the accounts that are
given us it may be reasonably concluded^ that the generality
of the vulgar Heathens, and many even of their learned
men and philosophers themselves, though they had not en-
tirely lost the idea of the one Supreme God, transferred
it to the sun. To him they attributed the divine titles and
attributes: on him they terminated their worship, and in
conjunction with him, though in a kind of subordination to
him, on the other stars, and on the earth and elements) all
which they supposed to be animated* The last-mentioned

(a) Herb. De Relig. Qentil. p. 293. Edit. Amstel, 8vo. 1700-
Vol. L N

98 The Worship of the heavenly Bodies^ ^c. Part L

learned and noble author supposes them to have worshipped
the sun " vice summi Dei;" and represents them as having
acted no less absurdly than those would do, who, coming
to the court of a most powerful monarch, should give the
honours due only to the king to the first courtier they saw
cloathed in splendid apparel. " Certe qui solem vice summi
Dei coluerunt, proinde fecere, ac illi qui ad aulam poten-
tissimi principis accedentes, quem primum amictu splendido
indutum cernerent, regium illi cultum deferendum existi-
maverint (^)."

Thus we have considered the first great deviation from
the knowledge and worship of the true God among the
heathen nations. And I shall conclude the account of this
kind of idolatry with the elegant representation made of it
by the author of the book of Wisdom. " Surely vain are all
all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not
out of the good things that are seen know him that is:
neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the
workmaster; but deemed either fire or wind, or the swift
air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or
the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the
world. With whose beauty, if they being delighted took
them to be gods, let them know how much better the Lord
of them is: for the first author of beauty hath created them.
But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let
them understand by them, how much mightier he is that
made them. For by the greatness and beauty of the creation,
proportionably the Maker of them is seen (c)." ,;

{b) Herb. De Relig. Gentil. p. 26. Edit. Amstel. 1700.
(c) Wisd. chap. xiii. 1 — 5.

CHAPTER IV.

The worship of deified men and heroes another species of idolatry of an antienl
date, and which obtained very early in the Pagan world. Most of the principal
objects of the Heathen worship, the Dii majorum Gentium, had been once
dead men. The names and peculiar attributes originally belonging to the one
Supreme God applied to them, particularly to Jupiter; to whom «t the same
time were ascribed the most criminal actions. Jupiter Capitolinus, the prin-
cipal object of worship among the antient Romans, not the one true God, but
the chief of the Pagan divinities. The pretence, that the Pagan polytheism was
only the worshipping one true God under various names and manifestations,
examined and shewn to be insufficient. The different names and titles of God
erected into different deities.

1 HERE was another species of idolatry, which also be-
gan very early in the world, and very generally prevailed,
which was the worship of deified men or heroes. Here a
new scene of polytheism opens, which produced an amazing
multiplicity of gods, and continually increased. Philo Bi-
blius, as cited by Eusebius, observes, that " the most an-
tient Barbarians, especially the Phoenicians and Egyptians,
from whom other people took this custom, reckoned those
among the greatest gods, who had been the inventors of
things useful and necessary to human life, and who had
been benefactors to the nations." And that to them they
consecrated pillars and statues, and dedicated sacred festi-
vals (J). It is probable, that at first these things were little
more than monuments or memorials to their honour, but
afterwards became religious rites; and from honouring and
celebrating their memory, they proceeded to regard them as
deities. Thus, as the author of the book of Wisdom ex-
presses it, " in process of time an ungodly custom grown

(d) Euseb. Prsep. Evangel, lib. i. cap. 9. p. 32, 33. Edit. Pa-
ris 1628.

100 The Worship of deified Men of great Part I.

strong was kept as a law, and graven images were worship-
ped by the commandments of kings (^)." It was the notion
of hero deities, which principally introduced the worship of
images in human form, to which divine honours were paid.
And what is there said of kings may be applied to most of
the antient legislators, and the founders and governors of
cities and commonwealths. From political views they en-
couraged the worship of some who had once been men, and
took them into the number of their gods (/). This became
part of the religion of the state, with which the people
readily complied, and which at length was carried so far,
as in a great measure to banish the knowledge and worship
of the one true God out of the Nations. As those that set
up the heaven, the sun, and stars, for gods, did apply to
them the names and attributes of the Supreme Deity, so
when the custom of worshipping deified men took place,
their names and titles, and the rites of their worship, came

{e) Wisd. ch. xiv. 16.

(/) Cicero, in the person of Balbus the stoic, very much ap*
proves the custom of paying divine honours to famous men, and
regarding them as gods. De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 24. p. 163,
164. Edit. Cantabrig. 1723. And in his 3d book De Nat. Deor.
cap. 19. p. 295, Cotta observes, that in most cities it was usual,
in order to encourage men to hazard their lives for the common-
wealth, to take those who had been eminent for their fortitude
into the number of their gods: of which he there gives several
instances. Accordingly this is what Cicero himself prescribes in
his second book of laws, where he requires, that those gods
should be worshipped, whom their merits had called into hea"
ven. De Leg. lib. ii. cap. 8. p. 100. And it will appear from a
passage to be soon quoted from him, that even those which were
accounted the chief of the Pagan deities were such as had been
once men. Such was the effect of modelling religion by the rules
of human wisdom and policy, which, in this as well as other
instances, has greatly corrupted and depraved it.

Chap. IV. Antiquity among the Pagans, 101

at length to be confounded with those of the celestial deities:
and both the one and the other had those attributes ascribed
to them, and that worship paid them, which properly belong
to the one God, the creator of the universe. Philo Biblius,
in the passage above referred to from Eusebius, observes
it as a thing particularly remarkable, that they applied the
names of their kings to the elements of the universe, and to
several of those things which they esteemed to be gods, and
which he calls (pvatK^? ^8»«, natural gods, viz.. the sun, moon,
and stars. This caused an inextricable confusion in the hea-
then worship, as Selden has observed (^). Thus, Osiris
among the Egyptians, Bel among the Chaldeans, and the
Baal of the Phoenicians, signified both a deified man and
the sun. Many other names of their gods might be men-
tioned, which were the names both of stars and heroes:
and they were both honoured with the most divine titles and
epithets. Several eminent writers have shewn, that the
names of some of the Pagan deities were corruptions of the
Hebrew names of God, as Jove, Evius, Sabius, &c. which
were originally understood of the one Supreme Deity, but
afterwards came to be applied to deified heroes. Who those
heroes were that were first worshipped among the Pagans
as Gods, the learned are not agreed. Some celebrated au*
thors have displayed an abundance of learning to shew, that
all the fables relating to the antient Pagan divinities, and
the actions ascribed to them, were taken from the Scripture
accounts of Noah, the Patriarchs, of Moses, and the most
eminent Jewish heroes. This seems to be a carrying the

(g) Seld. De Diis Syris, Proleg. cap. iii. p. 51. Edit. Lips. To
the same purpose Lord Herbert. " Inido heroas in astris ple-
rumque, astra in heroibus colentes, adeo ut cognomines ita
essent, neque satis judicari posset nam aniles de lis contextae
fabulae ad astra mystyce, an ad homines mythice pertinerent.*'
]D.e Relig. Gentil. cap. xi.

102 The Worship of deified Men of great Part I.

matter too far: yet, I think, they have offered enough to
render it probable, that this was the case in several in-
stances, and that there was in the heathen mythology a mix-
ture of obscure traditions relating to some of the Patriarchs
before and after the flood, and other eminent persons men-
tioned in Scripture. These were jumbled together with the
accounts of the antient Eg)'ptian and Grecian heroes, and
afterwards farther disguised and embellished with poetical
fictions, so that it is scarce possible clearly to discern and dis-
tinguish the genuine original traditions, from what was after-
wards added to them. The Abbe Banier, in his mythology
of the antients, has offered a great deal to prove, that the
fables of antiquity are not merely allegorical, but founded
upon facts, and under the disguise of divers fictitious cir-
cumstances contain the history of many real events. He gives
a particular detail of the history of the antient deities of the
Egyptians, ^Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Chaldeans,
Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans, Gauls, Germans, and other
nations {K), Sir Isaac Newton, in his Chronology, has also

/ Qi) The Abbe Pluche, in his Histoire du Ciel, goes upon a
different scheme. He endeavours to shew, that the Egyptian
mythology, religion, and theogony, from which that of the
Greeks and Romans was derived, was wholly owing to an abuse
of the antient hieroglyphical characters, which were originally
nothing else than signs to advertise the Egyptians of the increase
and decrease of the Nile, of the variations of the seasons, the
rules of agriculture, and the different labours of the husband-
man, and other things of the like nature. That it might be so in
several instances, and that an abuse of the hieroglyphical cha-
racters probably gave occasion to some of the antient mytholo-
gical fables, may be allowed, and had been observed by learned
men before. But to make this the sole original of the gods and
goddesses of the Egyptians and Greeks, with all their sacred rites
and ceremonies, is a scheme that cannot be supported. His con-
jectures are very ingenious; but in the extent to which he has

Chap. IV. Antiquity among the Pagans, 103

considered this matter, and given a good account of the
antient deities, so famous in Pagan story, especially among
the Egyptians and Greeks. It may not be improper here to
mention a judicious observation of Pausanias, that " in
every age, many events which happened a long time ago,
have been rendered incredible by those who have raised a
superstructure of lies upon things which were originally
true." He adds, that " they who heard these fabulous rela-
tions with pleasure, were apt to add to them other fictions,
and so the truths by mixing falsehoods with them were
corrupted and destroyed (/)." As the Pagans had among
them traditionary accounts of the lives and actions, both
good and bad, of those persons who had been deified, these
being mixed with fables, were wrought into their theology;
which had the most pernicious effect upon their religion and
worship. Cotta, in Cicero De Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 42.
speaking of those who said that famous and powerful men
had after death obtained divine honours, and been admitted
into the number of the gods; and that these are the gods
whom we are wont to supplicate and adore; adds, that
this subject was particularly treated of by Euhemerus, the
Messenian, whose work was translated by Ennius into La-
tin; and that he shewed both when they died and where
their sepulchres were to be seen. " Ab Euhemero autem et
mortes et sepulturse demonstrantur deorum (i)." He indeed

carried them, serve only to shew, how apt learned men are,
when they have fallen upon a new and favourite hypothesis, to
run into extremes.

(i) 'Ek Tai TTcivrt eciavt iFoXXot fciv 7ci}ixi (rvf^QufTtc ^wjjKm ^e ysrojueytt
tt,7Fi<3tc ztteci ^(TCOiviKetQ'iv 01 Toii aXv^ditriv iTTOtKOOOf^QvTlg l^/ivoTfAivtc. Pau-
sanias in Arcadicis.

(k) Lactantius gives a particular account of Euhemerus, and
acquaints us, that he gave the history of their births, marriages,
offspring, actions, government, and death. Divin. Instit. l#b. i.

104 The principal of the Pagan DWinities I^art \.

there insinuates, that those who talked thus were void of
all religion; " expertes religionum omnium." And puts the
question, whether Euhemerus did not instead of confirming
religion, take it away entirely? " Utrum igitur hie confir-
masse religionem videtur, an penitus totam sustulisse?" Yet
the same Cotta, in the 3d book De Nat. Deor. cap. xv. et
seq. insists largely upon it, that some of their gods were
once mortals; and represents those accounts as collected
from antient fame or traditions of the Greeks. "Ex veteri
Grieciae fama coUecta." Ibid. cap. xxiii. And Cicero, in one
of his best treatises, expresses himself very fully to the
same purpose. He says, that " almost the whole heaven is
filled with the human race: that upon searching into the
antient accounts, and what the Greek writers have deliver-
ed from them, it will be found, that even those that are
accounted the greater deities, dii majorum gentium, were
taken from among men into heaven: that their sepulchres
were shewn in Greece." — And he intimates, that " these
things were delivered in the mysteries themselves, as those
that were initiated knew (/)." The Dii majorum gentium,
which were also called Consentes, were comprehended by
Ennius in this distich,

/" Juno, Vesta, Minerva, CereSj Diana, Venus, Mars,
/Mercurius, Jovis, Neptunus, Vulcanus, Apollo.'*

cap. II. p. 62. et De Ira Dei, cap. ii. p. 794. Edit. Lugd. Bat.
1660.

(/) « Totum prope ccelum, nonne humano genere completum
est? Si vero scrutari Vetera, et ex his ea qu3e Scriptores Graeciae
prodiderunt, eruere coner; ipsi illi, majorum gentium dii qui
habentur, hinc a nobis profecti in coelum reperientur. Quare
quorum demonstrantur sepulchra in Graecia reminiscere, quo-
niam es initiatus, quae traduntur in mysteriis; tum denique,
quam late hoc pateat intelliges. Tuscul. Disput. lib. i. cap. 12,
13. p. 30. Edit. Davis, 1738.

Chap. IV. had once been Men, lOJ

Thus, according to Cicero, those which were esteemed the
superior deities, and were the principal objects of the Pagan
worship, had been once men: and this was taught even in
the mysteries (w). By the way I would observe, that this
is absolutely subversive of the scheme of those who would
make the names of these gods pass only for different names
and manifestations of the one Supreme Divinity: which was
the pretence of some of the antient philosophers and apolo- '
gists for Paganism, and has been adopted by several learned
moderns. Plutarch indeed, in his treatise de Isido et Osir.
passes a very severe censure upon Euhemerus for giving
such accounts of their gods, as made them to have been
originally no more than kings and great men. He charges
this as tending to the utter subversion of all religion (ri)c
But whatever tendency it might have to expose the Pagan
religion, it cannot reasonably be denied, that some of those
which were accounted their principal deities had been ori-
ginally of the human race. From this very treatise of Plu-
tarch, in which he censures Euhemerus, it appears, that
some of the Egyptian priests themselves, speaking of Osiris,
whom they called the great and good, the lord of all, gave
an account of his birth, his actions, and exploits; that he was
king of Egypt, and that he drew the Egyptians from a
savage beastly way of living, by teaching them agriculture,

(m) Yet to shew how inconsistent the Heathens were in their
theology, when some lands in Boeotia were exempted by law
from taxes, because they belonged to the immortal gods, the
Roman publicans, or tax-gatherers, were not willing to allow it,
under pretence, that none were to be esteemed immortal gods,
who had once been men. So Cotta in Cicero informs us. " Nostri
quidem publicani, cum essent agri in Boeotia deorum immorta-
lium except! lege censoria, negabant immortales esse ullos qui
aliquando homines fuissent." De Nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 19. p. 294--

(«) Plutarch. Oper. torn. ii. p. 360. A. Edit. FraJ)cof. 1620,

Vol. r, O

106 ^ The Jupiter of the Pagans Part I.

and the use of grain, giving them laws, and instructing them
how to honour the gods. They mention the years of his
reign, the time and circumstances of his death, and pretend-
ed to shew his sepulchre. And I cannot help thinking, that
they who resolved these things into antient historical tra-
ditions, though these traditions were undoubtedly very much
obscured and mixed with fables, gave a much more reason-
able account of them, than those who endeavoured to re-
solve them wholly into physical allegories, which by the
account Plutarch gives of them were very much forced; and
in the explication of which they were by no means agreed.
And the hypothesis which he himself hath advanced, attri-
buting those things to good or evil daemons, which others
ascribed to their heroes, hath nothing to support it but his
own imagination (o).

Callimachus, in his hymn to Jupiter, charges the Cretans
as liars, for pretending that they had his sepulchre among
them; whereas he never died, but existed always: yet he
himself affirms Jupiter to have been born in Arcadia. The
learned Dr. Cudworth, who mentions this, makes a reflec-
tion upon it, which, he says, may pass for a general obser-
vation, that " the Pagan theology was all along confounded
) with a certain mixture of physiology and herology," (i. e. the
history of their great men and heroes) " blended together."
This observation, which that excellent writer frequently re-
peats, may help us to judge how far that hypothesis is to
be deoended upon, which he takes so much pains to esta-
blish, that the Jupiter of the Pagans was the one true Su-
preme God, and worshipped as such, not only by the philo-
sophers but by the people. He roundly asserts, that " as
for the vulgar of the Greekish Pagans, whether they appre-
hended God to be a mind or intellect separate from the

(o) Plutarch. Oper. torn. ii. p. 360. A. Edit. Francof. 1620.

Chap. IV. the chief of their Hero Deities. lar

world, or else to be a soul of the world only (/>), it cannot
•be doubted, but by the word Ziv^ they commonly understood
the Supreme Deity in one or other of those senses, the fa-
ther and king of gods; he being frequently thus stiled in
their solemn nuncupation of vows — O Jupiter father, and
O Jupiter king — ZiZ *«T^g, Zev «y<«." And that "the Latins
did, in like manner, by Jupiter, and Jovis, frequently denote
the Supreme Deity and Monarch of the universe is a thing
unquestionable, and which does sufficiently appear from
those epithets which were given him of Optimus and Maxi-
mus, the Best and Greatest, and also of Omnipotent, fre-
quently bestowed upon him by Virgil and others (^)." And
he thinks the very name of Jupiter or Jovis was of an He-
braical extraction, and derived from the tetragrammaton,
which was pronounced Jovah or Javoh, or Uvu or i«s<w, or

{fi) I think the Doctor here makes a very imperfect enumera-
tion of the various senses in which Jupiter was taken by the peo-
ple, and even by the learned Pagans themselves. Some by Jupiter
undertood the world itself; others, the soul of the world. And
Macrobius affirms Juprier to be the sun. Saturnal. lib. i. cap. 23.
He begins that chapter thus: " Nee ipse Jupiter rex deorum
solis naturam videtur excedere: sed eundem esse Jovem claria
docetur indiciis. — Jupiter himself, the king of the gods, does not
seem to exceed the nature of the sun: and that Jupiter is the same
with the sun appears from clear evidences." Others supposed
Jupiter to be the xther, as in the passages cited above from Eu-
ripides and Ennius. To whom may be added, Virgil, who calls
the aether Pater Omnipotens. Horace often uses the word Jupi-
ter to signify the air, as in lib. iii. ode 10. verse 7, 8. Epod. 13.
verse 2. but especially lib. i. ode 1. verse 25. in the notes upon;-
which, in the Delphin edition, there is a quotation from Varro, ,
that the ancient Greeks by Jupiter understood the air, the wind,
and clouds. But he s,eems generally to have been taken by the
people for the hero deity, the son of Saturn, celebrated by the
poets.

{q) Intel, syst. chap. iv. sect. xiy. p. 259, 260. second edition.

1Q8 The Jupiter of the Pagans Part I.

the like. And the abbreviation of this was Jah; and from
thence came Jovis pater, Jove the father, abbreviated into
Jupiter (r). I shall not contest this etymology of the name
Jupiter, which many learned men have thought probable.
But that this name, which might have been originally de-
signed to express the Supreme God, was afterwards gene-
rally applied by the Pagans to the principal of their hero
deities, cannot be reasonably denied. It admits of the
clearest proof, that the Jupiter of the poets, whom they often
honoured with the most magnificent epithets, as the thunderer,
the omnipotent, the father of gpds and men, and whom they
frequently describe as exercising a sovereign universal do-
minion, is the same Jupiter of whom they make such inde-
cent representations, and of whom the mythologists told
such monstrous fables, many of which were adopted into their
religion. Their ascribing to him such divine titles, and the
government of all things, shews, that they had among them
a notion of one Supreme Divinity, and of the attributes
which properly belonged to him; but it also shews, that they
confounded the one Supreme God with the chief of their idol-
deities, and ascribed to the latter the peculiar characters
and worship due to the former.

Many passages of this kind might be produced from Ho-
mer, who was in great esteem among the Pagans, both as a
poet and a divine. I shall only mention a few out of the
first book of his Iliad. He calls him the high thundering
Jove, and represents him in the description which is so
much admired by Longinus and others for its sublimity, as
causing all heaven to tremble with his nod: " that he is the
most excellent of all— ^ro^v ^i^rxro^ £«■<»." And he elsewhere
describes him, " as the father of gods and men — wetrh^ tiv^^Sv

(r) Intel, syst. chap. iv. sect. xiv. p. 259, 260, ct p. 45 1, scconil
edition.

Chap. IV. the chief of their Hero Deities, 109

T« ^lav Tt; who reigneth over both gods and men — Sj n B-iol^i
Kut uvB-^uTFcivtf uy»(r(rei (*)." Yet he mentions his being in dan-
ger from a combination of the other gods, Juno, Neptune,
and Pallas, who had conspired to bind him with fetters; and
that Thetis delivered him, and averted the danger, by call*
ing in Briareus to his assistance. He also represents him as
quarrelling with Juno, as reproached by her, and threaten-
ing her {t). Hesiod, in his Theogonia, describes Jupiter by
the most magnificent epithets, as the father of gods and
men, the beginning and end of the muses songs, the most
excellent of the gods, the wise, or counsellor, and the
greatest in might, by whose thunder the earth is shaken,
who governs mortals and immortals; and he calls him the
most glorious Jupiter, the greatest of all the eternal Gods (u).
Yet, he says, he was born of Rhea and Saturn, along with
Vesta, Ceres, Juno, Pluto, Neptune, and was the youngest
of their sons: that he dethroned his father Saturn, and ex-
pelled him from his empire, vers. 453, et seq. et 490. The
Latin poets talk in the same strain. Dr. Cudworth has pro-
duced some remarkable passages from Plautus, to shew that
the Heathens acknowledged one Supreme God, whom they
called Jupiter, and entertained noble notions concerning
him and his government of the world. Yet the same Plautus
in his Amphytrio represents this very Jupiter as contriving
and perpetrating the most criminal adultery: and whilst he
ascribes to him a conduct so false and vicious, as scarce any
but the worst of men could be guilty of, calls him that Ju-
piter whom all men ought to fear and reverence, " the king
or ruler of the gods — Deum regnator: who easily doeth
whatsoever he wills — facile quod vult facit." And he ho-

(s) Iliad u. vers. 354. 281. 528, 529, 530. 581.
(t) Ibid. vers. 397, et seq. 540, et seq.
(w)Theogon.vers. 47,48,49.457, 458. 481. 506. 548.

no The Jupiter of the Pagans Part I.

nours him with " the title of Jupiter the Supreme Lord of
gods and men— summus imperator divum atque hominum
Jupiter (a:). Ovid calls Jupiter " Pater Omnipotens — the
Father Almighty," even when he is going to tell of his de-
flouring Callisto (t/). And when he represents him as taking
upon him the shape of a bull that he might carry off and
commit a rape upon Europa, he gives that magnificent de-
scription of him, which the Doctor also produces to shew
that by Jupiter the Supreme God was signified.

*' llle pater, rectorque Deiim, cui dextra trisulcis
Ignibus armata est, qui nutu concutit orbem,
Induitur tauri faciem (z)**

Where he calls him the father and ruler of the gods, whose
right hand is armed with three-forked thunderbolts, who
shakes the world with his nod.

Virgil was a poet of great learning and judgment, and
he has several passages which have been produced to
prove, that the Pagans understood by Jupiter the one
true Supreme God. He frequently calls him " the Father
Almighty — Pater Omnipotens. The Father of gods and
king of men — Divum pater atque hominum rex («)." He
introduces Venus as addressing him in that noble manner;

" O qui res hominumque Deumque
" jEternis regis imperils, et fulmine terres (*)."

Of the same kind is that other address of Venus to him:

*' O Pater, O hominum Diviimque aeterna potestas (c)."

(x) Amphytr. Prolog, lin. 23. 45. 139. Act v. seen. i. lin. 64.

(y) Metamorph. lib. ii. vers. 402.

(z)Ibid. vers. 850,851.

(a) jEneid. lib. i. vers. 65. et lib. x. vers. 2.

(«) Ibid. lib. i. vers. 229, 230.

Chap. IV. not the one true Supreme God, 111

But let us consider who that Jupiter is, of vrhom the poet
says these great things. It is the same Jupiter whom he
describes as the father of Venus, and husband of Juno,
and whom he represents as at a difficuhy how to act, that
he might not disoblige his wife or his daughter, who took
opposite sides. Juno is introduced as boasting of herself, that
she was the queen of the gods, and the sister and wife of
Jupiter.

" DivAm incedo regina Jovisque
Et sorer et conjux (d)."

And Jupiter himself in a soothing speech he makes to
her, calls her his sister and beloved wife (e). The same
Jupiter is honoured by the poet with the character of Ju-
piter omnipotens, when he speaks of the prayer offered to
him by Jarbas, king of the Gaetulians, who was begotten
by him of a Garamantian nymph, ^neid. iv. vers. 198.
206. 208.

The last poet I shall mention is Horace. There is an ad-
mirable passage in the 12th ode of his first book, which has
been often quoted:

" Quid prius dicam solitis parentis
Laudibus, qui res hominum ac Deorum,
Qui mare et terras, variisque mundum

Temperat horis?
Unde nil majus generator ipso;
Nee viget quidquam simile aut secundum."

Scarce any thing more sublime could be said of the one true
Supreme God. He represents him as exercising an univer-
sal dominion, governing the affairs of gods and men, the
sea, the land, and the seasons; than whom nothing is

(d) iEneid. lib. i. vers. 46, 47.

(e) Ibid. lib. x. vers. 607.

112 The poetical Jupiter Part L

greater; nor is any thing like him, or that can be reckoned
so much as second to him. Yet in this very ode he addresses
him as having sprung from Saturn,* which shews that Ju-
piter, the son of Saturn, was that Jupiter of whom he had
said such glorious things.

Gentis humanae pater atque custos
Orte Saturno.

And he celebrates along with him, though in an inferior
degree, Pallas, Liber, Phoebus.

Another passage of the same kind is in the fourth ode of
his third book, where he saith of Jupiter,

Qui terram inertem, qui mare temperat
Ventosum, et urbes, regnaque tristia,
Divosque mortalesque turmas
Imperio regit unus sequo.

Yet in the verses immediately succeeding this magnificent
description, he represents the Jupiter he is speaking of, as
having been in danger and struck with great terror by the
insurrection of the Titans; "magnum terrorem intulerat
Jovi:" But that he was assisted by Pallas, Vulcan, Juno,
and Apollo. See also lib. ii. ode 12. vers. 7, 8, 9. The same
poet calls Jupiter the supreme or highest god, when he
speaks of his amours with Latona, by whom he had Apollo

and Diana- " Latonamque supremo dilectam penitus

Jovi." Lib. i. ode 21. And he elsewhere hints at Jupiter's
debauching Danae, and ravishing Ganymede. Lib. iii. ode
16. and lib. iv. ode 4.

■^ I have insisted the more largely upon this matter, be-
cause great stress has been laid upon several of the passages
which have been mentioned, to prove, that by the Pagan
Jupiter the one true Supreme God was understood, the
same whom we adore: whereas the proper conclusion to be
drawn from it, is not that the Jupiter celebrated by the

Chap. IV. not the one true Supreme God, 113

poets was the one true God, but that they ascribed to their
Jupiter, who was really an idol, the peculiar attributes and
supreme dominion which belong only to the true God.
And it must be observed, that the Jupiter of the poets was
the popular Jupiter, the object of vulgar adoration among
the Pagans. There is a passage of Dio Chrysostomus, orafe
56. cited by Dr. Cudworth, which is very full to this pur-
pose. He says, " All the poets call the first and greatest
God the father, and also the king universally of the whole
rational kind: believing or being persuaded by whom, i. e.
by the poets, men erect altars to Jupiter the king, and
stick not to call him father in their devotions "^Oig

WSiB-ofCivct et oivB-^6ii>r»( Aiog /ienriXiag l^^vovlui ^of^Hq^ kxi 2i tcett Trtcziflee
ivrov iSK oKviio-i v^ocrxyo^ivuv Iv roitg Ivj^xTs (y)." Where it is
plainly intimated, that it was by the poets that the people
were instructed to erect altars, and to make their prayers
and vows to Jupiter as the Father and King of all. And
Dr. Cudworth himself more than once observes, that the
poets were the prophets and chief instructors of the people.
This learned writer also acknowledges, that " among the
Greeks Zivj was supposed to have been at first the name
of a man or a hero, but yet was afterwards applied to sig-
nify the Supreme God." And he makes the same obser-
vation concerning the Egj^ptian Jupiter Hammon: which
name he thinks to have been first derived from Ham or
Cham, the son of Noah; though he endeavours to prove
that it was used among the Egyptians to express the Su-
preme Deity. But this only shews the truth of what he
Uiere observes, " That there might be such a mixture of
herology or history, together with theology, amongst the
Egyptians, as there was amongst the Greeks (^ )." This

(/) Intel. Syst. chap. iv. sect. 27, p. 448,
(5-) Ibid. sect. 18. p. 338.
Vol. I. P

114 The poetical Jupiter Part L

must needs have produced a strange confusion in their
theology and worship, and which continued all along dur-
ing the times of Paganism, confounding the Supreme God
with an idol, and an idol with the Supreme. The same ex-
cellent writer is of opinion, that the Egyptian Jupiter
Hammon is mentioned, Jcr. xlviii. 25. which he translates
thus, " I will punish Amon No;" as it is in the margin of
our bibles, i. e. as he interprets it, " Amon the god of
No." And he produces as parallel to this, the punishments
denounced in the 46th chapter of Isaiah, and in the 51st of
Jeremiah's Prophecies, against Bel, which, according to
Herodotus, was the name of the Supreme God among the
Babylonians (A). But these passages are by no means fa-
vourable to the Doctor's hypothesis, since they plainly
shew, that those prophets, speaking in the name and by
the inspiration of God himself, looked upon both Jupiter
Hammon the chief god of the Egyptians, and Bel of the
Chaldeans, not to have been the one true God, but idol-
deities.

The same may be said of the Capitoline Jupiter, who
was the highest object of the adoration of the Roman peo-
ple, the chief god of their religion, and of their laws. I am
sensible, that very learned men have been of a different
opinion, and particularly the justly celebrated author last
mentioned, who maintains that the Jupiter worshipped in
the Capitol was the one true Supreme God, whom the
Romans worshipped under that name. And it must be
acknowledged, that the most divine titles and attributes
were ascribed to him. He was honoured with the glorious
titles of " Optimus et Maximus — the Best and Greatest."
Cicero, in one of his orations before the Roman people.
Pro Roscio Amerino, N. 45, says of him, " Jupiter Op-

(A) Intel. Syst. chap. iv. sect. 18. p. 339, 340.

Chap. IV. not the one true Supreme God, 115

timus, Maximus, cujus nutu et arbitrio ccelum, terra, ma-
ria reguntur — By whose nod and sovereign will, the hea-
ven, the earth, and seas are governed." This is a noble de-
scription; but it is no more than the poets have fre-
quently said of their Jupiter. So also the Cretan Jupiter,
whose sepulchre was shewn in Crete, is called by
Plutarch, " "A^^m kxI xv^tog wxvrav — The Ruler and Lord of
all (i)." Seneca calls Jupiter, "Custodem rectoremque
universi, animum ac spiritum, mundani hujus operis domi-
num et artificem, cui nomen omne convenit — The guar-
dian and ruler of the universe, the soul and spirit, the
artificer and Lord of this mundane frame, to whom every
name agrees." He afterwards says of him, he may be
rightly called " Mundus — the world;" and adds, "Ipse
est totum quod vides, totus suis partibus inditus, et se sus-
tinens vi sua (i)." And in other passages he speaks of
Jupiter as the world, and the soul of the world, (which, ac-
cording to the stoics, was an intellectual fire or aether uni-
versally diffused) and as one great whole, of which we all
are the parts and members (/). When he here says, " that
to him every Name agrees," he goes upon the notion adopt-
ed by the stoics and some other philosophers, that the seve-
ral Pagan deities were one God under different names:
which pretence shall be considered presently. But in all this,
it is plain, he represents only his own and the stoical opi-
nion; not what the popular notion of Jupiter Capitolinus
was, about which the enquiry properly lies. And here the
same observation recurs, which was before made with re-
gard to the poets. The divine epithets with which the Ro-

(i) Plut. De Is. et Osir. oper. torn. ii. p. 381. D.
(k) Nat. Quaest. lib. ii. cap. 45.

(/) See a remarkable passage to this purpose on his 92d Epis-
tle.

116 The Capitoline Jupiter Part L

man people honoured the Capitoline Jupiter, shew that they
still retained among them so much of the antient tradition,
as to have some notion of the Supreme Divinity, and of the
attributes which belong to him: but it also appears, that
they strangely perverted and corrupted it, by applying the
proper characters and attributes of the one true Supreme
God to that Jupiter who was really no more than the chief
of their idol deities. For the Jupiter worshipped by the
people in the Capitol was the same Jupiter who is celebrat-
ed by the poets. This is what Cicero signifies in a passage
quoted by Dr. Cudworth; " Jupiter," says he, " is called
by the poets the Father of gods and men, and by our an-
cestors the Best and Greatest — Jupiter a poetis dicitur
divum atque hominum pater, a majoribus autem nostris
Optimus Maximus (m)." And indeed there are several
things which shew that the Capitoline was the same with
the poetical Jupiter. Horace in the sublime passage quoted
above, where he speaks in the most exalted terms of the
Jupiter whom the Romans worshipped, represents him as
sprung from Saturn — " Orte Saturno." Jupiter Capitoline
was particularly described as the thunderer, and the father
of gods and men; so also was the Jupiter of the poets. The
poetic Jupiter had Juno for his wife, and Minerva for his
daughter: so also Jupiter in the Capitol had Minerva and
Juno joined with him. It was to Jupiter, Juno, and Miner-
va that Tarquinius Priscus dedicated the Capitol, in conse-
quence of a vow which he had made: and the two latter
had chapels in the Capitol, the one on the right of Jupiter,
the other on the left, and Jupiter himself in the middle.
Hence Lactantius observes, " that the Jupiter of the Ca-
pitol was not usually worshipped without the partnership of
his wife and daughter — Jupiter sine contubernio conjugis

(m) De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 25.

Chap. IV. not the one true Supreme God, 117

filiaeque coli non solet (n)." An instance of this we have in
Cicero's Oratio pro Donio sua ad Pontifices. He concludes
it with a most solemn address to Jupiter, whom he there
mentions in conjunction with Juno the queen, and Minerva,
and the other deities which presided over their city and
commonwealth. Jupiter is placed at the head of them, being
looked upon as in a peculiar manner the guardian of the
Roman empire: but still he was only one in the number of
their divinities, though higher in dignity than the rest. The
Ludi Seculares were the most solemn of all the Roman sa-
cred games and festivals, to be celebrated once in one hun-
dred and ten years; and which were designed both to do
honour to the deities who were supposed to protect the
Roman empire, and to implore a blessing from them upon
the public. And in these festivals Jupiter was only one of
the deities which were celebrated and invoked: with him
were joined Juno, Latona, Apollo, and Diana, the Parcse,
Ceres, Pluto, and Proserpina; as Zosimus, who was a zeal-
ous Pagan, informs us (0). And this also appears from
Horace's famous Carmen Seculare, composed for that
occasion (/>). The truth is, that the Roman Jupiter was one
of the Dii majorum gentium, or the Dii consentes, ranked

(n) Divin. Instit. lib. i. cap. 1 1. p. 63.

(0) Zosim. Hist. lib. ii.

(/?) There was another solemn act of deyotion, which was
sometimes performed in the most antient times of the Roman
state, when persons devoted themselves to death for the safety
of the Commonwealth in times of imminent danger; and in this
also Jupiter was considered only as in conjunction with other dei-
ties. They devoted themselves to Janus, Jupiter, Mars, the Dii
Manes; praying them to bless and prosper the Roman Republic,
and to bring destruction upon their enemies. The form of this
devotion may be seen in Casaubon's notes on Suetonius's Cali-
gula, cap. 14.

118 The Capitoline Jupiter Part I.

among them in the verses before cited from Ennius, as also
by Varro: and it is observable that Cicero, in his second
book of laws, when he treats of divine worship, takes no
particular notice of Jupiter; but crowds him in among the
other celestial gods, under the general rule. " Divos, et eos
qui coelestes semper habiti, colunto." De Leg. lib. ii. cap.
8. p. 100.

The learned Dr. Cudworth, who takes notice of what
Lactantius says about Juno and Minerva's being joined
with the Capitoline Jupiter in the public worship, though
he is not willing to allow the inference which Lactantius
draws from it, that Jupiter Capitolinus was not the one true
God, yet observes on this occasion, that " it is plain there
is here a certain mixture of the mythical or poetical theo-
logy, together with the natural, as almost every where else
there was to make up the civil theology of the Pagans(5')."
He adds indeed, that " according to the more recondite
and arcane theology of the Pagans, these three Capitoline
gods, Jupiter, Minerva, and Juno, as well as some others,

{q) Those who were for interpreting this in a way of physical
allegory, by Jupiter understood the aether, by Juno the air, and
by Minerva the higher heaven. So Macrobius in Somn. Scip. lib.
i. cap. 17. et Saturnal. lib. iii. cap. 4. Servius in his notes on
^neid. lib. i. vers. 50. where Juno is called the sister and wife
of Jupiter observes, that Physici, the natural philosophers, un-
derstood by Jupiter the aether, and by Juno the air, called his
sister and wife, because of the near conjunction between them.
Balbus the stoic gives the same account in Cicero De Nat.
Deorum, lib. ii. cap. 26. St. Austin acquaints us, that the same
thing was said by the Pagans in his time. De Civit. Dei, lib. iii.
cap. 10. p. 74. And this is not easily reconcilable to the notion of
Jupiter Capitolinus's being the one Supreme God. That learned
Father very well shews the confusion and self-contradiction of
Varro and others on this head. Ibid. lib. vii. c. 16. p. 134, and c.
28. p. 141.

Chap. IV. not the one true Supreme God, 119

may be understood to have been nothing else but several
names and notions of one Supreme Deity, according to its
several attributes and manifestations (r)." Not to examine
this hypothesis at present, I would observe, that the Doc-
tor calls it " the recondite and arcane theology of the Pa-
gans;" where he plainly intimates, that whatever notions
some speculative men might entertain of this matter, this
theology was not known among the people. Nor was it
intended they should know it. They regarded them as dis-
tinct deities, and adored them as such. The same learned
writer acknowledges, that " the fabulous theology, both of
the Greeks and Romans, did not only generate all the other
gods, but even Jupiter himself also their supreme numen,
assigning him both a father and mother, a grandfather and
grandmother. And though the Romans did not plainly adopt
this into their civil theology, yet are they taxed by St. Aus-
tin for suffering the statue of Jupiter's nurse to be kept in
the Capitol for a religious monument (5)." The Doctor
adds, that " this was connived at by the politicians, in a way
of necessary compliance with the vulgar; it being extremely
difficult for them to conceive such a living being or animal
as was never made, and without a beginning (?)." He seems
to me here to give up the cause, as far as it relates to the
popular Pagan notion of Jupiter Capitolinus. The excuse
he makes for the politicians and great men of the state^

(r) Intel. Syst. chap. iv. sect. 27. p. 550.

(*) St. Austin observes properly on this occasion, that by this
they gave testimony to Euhemerus, who, with the diligence of
an historian, shewed that the gods had been mortal men, Nonne
adtestati sunt Euhemero, qui omnes tales deos, non fabulosa
garrulitate sed historica diligentia, homines fuisse mortalesquie
conscripsit? De Civit. Dei. lib. v. cap. 7. p. 1 19. A.

(0 Intel. Syst. chap. iv. sect. 32. p. 478.

120 The Capitoline Jupiter Part I.

plainly shews how little was to be expected from them for
bringing the people to a right sense of religion and the
Deity. Moses, the Lawgiver of the Jews, was governed by
quite different and far nobler principles. Having a divine
commission, and animated by the spirit of God, he was
above the mean interested views of human policy, and
brought an illiterate people to just and sublime notions of
the one true and eternal Divinity. I shall conclude what
relates to Jupiter Capitolinus, the chief god of the political
Roman state, with an observation of the very learned wri-
ter I have so often mentioned on this occasion. " The dis-
tinction of the natural and true theology from the civil and
political, as it was acknowledged by all the antient Greek
philosophers, but most expressly by Antisthenes, Plato,
Aristotle, and the Stoics, so was it owned and much in-
sisted upon both by Scaevola, that famous Roman pontifex,
and by Varro, that most learned antiquary; they both agree-
ing, that the civil theology then established by the Roman
laws was only the theology of the vulgar, but not the
true (w)."

I now proceed to observe further, that in consequence of
the mixing the history of their heroes with their theology,
the Pagan mythologists often ascribed very scandalous ac-
tions to their gods; and particularly to Jupiter, whom they
regarded as the chief of them. And at the same time that
they applied to their deities the most divine titles and attri-
butes, they represented them with all the passions and even
vices of frail mortals. The passage in Terence is well
known, where a young man encourages himself to a lewd
action by the example of Jupiter, whom he there describes,
as " shaking the highest heavens with the noise of his thun-

(w) Intel. Syst. chap. iv. sect. 32. p. 478.

Chap. IV. not the one true Supreme God* 120

der — Qui templa coeli sumraa sonitu concutit (^).'^ Euri-^
pides puts this argument into the mouth of several of his
speakers in his tragedies (z/). Plato observes, in his first
book of laws, that the Cretans, who indulged themselves in
the impure love of boys, pleaded the example of Jupiter
and Ganymede (z). Many other passages might be pro-
duced to the same purpose from antient authors* And these
things could not but have a very ill effect on the morals of
the people, and were laid hold on by wicked and licentious
persons, as giving sanction to their vices and debaucheries*
It is not therefore without reason that Arnobius exclaims^
" Quis est mortalium tam pudicis moribus institutus, quern
non ad hujusmodi furias deorum documenta proritent?— *
What mortal is so chastely educated, whom such examples
of the gods might not incite to the most libidinous ex-*
cesses?" Arnob. advers. Gent* lib. v. p. 178. edit* var*
Lugd. Bat. The scandalous things related of the ob-
jects of their worship had a manifest tendency to expose re-*
ligion to contempt. It is not therefore to be wondered at)
that they sometimes spoke of their deities in a very disre-*
spectful manner, and even of Jupiter himself. Thus Cicero^
in his Oratio pro Domo sua ad Pontifices, speaks by way
of gibe against Clodius, that he might call himself Jupiter^
as having his sister for his wife.

Hence it was that the primitive Christians looked upon
the name of Jupiter as so contaminated and polluted, that
they would rather endure the greatest torments than make
use of it to signify the one true God. There is a remarkable

(r) Terent. Eunuch. Act iii. scene 4.

(t/) See the passaii:es referred to by the learned author of the
Divine Legation of Moses, vol. i. book ii. sect. 4. p. 113. Marg;*
note.

(r) Plat. Oper. p. 569.

Vol, I. Q

122 The Pagan Deities Part h

passage of Origen to this purpose, in his fifth book against
Cclsus, p. 2G2. Edit. Cantabrig. where, speaking of the
Christians, he declares, " that they rather chose to undergo
any torments, than to acknowledge Jupiter to be God*
For," says he, " we do not look upon J upiter and Sabaoth"
[a Hebrew title, signifying the Lord of Hosts] " to be the
same: nor do we look upon Jupiter to be a Divinity at all;
but a certain daemon, who takes pleasure in being called by
that name, and who is not friendly to man, nor to the true
God. And if the Egyptians produce their Ammon to us,
threatening us with death, we will rather die than call Am-
mon God." And he expressed himself to the same pur-
pose before, ibid. lib. I. p. 29, where he says, the Christians
suflfer death rather than call God Jupiter; and he mentions
it as an instance of their piety, that they would not apply
any of those names, which were taken from the poetical fa-
bles, to the Creator of the universe; and that when they
spoke of God they either indefinitely used the word God,
or with an addition, the Creator of all things, the Maker of
heaven and earth. Lactantius also treats it as a great ab«-
surdity to give the name of Jupiter to the one true God (a).
The most plausible apology which is made for the Pagan
polytheism is, that the one true God was worshipped under
different titles and characters: that those which are reckoned
distinct deities and objects of worship were really no more
than different names or attributes of the one Supreme Deity
' according to his various manifestations and effects. This was
what the stoics and some of the other philosophers main-
tained. There is a remarkable passage of Seneca to this
purpose, De Benefic. lib. iv. cap. 7, 8. the purport of which
is to shew, that God may be rightly called by any of the

(a) Divin. Instit. lib. i. cap. 2. p. 63. Edit. Lugd. Bat. 1660.

Chap. IV. not different names of God. 123

names he mentions, viz. Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the
Thunderer, Jupiter Stator, Liber Pater, Hercules, Mercu-
ry (^), Nature, Fate and Fortune: for they are all the
names of the same God, using his power in various ways.
" Omnia ejusdem Dei nomina sunt, varie utentis sua potes-
tate. (c)" But we are to take this along with us, that,
as has been already hinted, Seneca takes God in the sense
of the stoics, who held that God is the soul of the world,
or the xvorld itself, considered as one great animated being,
of which all particular beings, and the things of nature, are
the parts and members, or the powers and virtues: which
several parts and powers of the universe they called by the
names of particular popular deities, and gave the name of
God to the whole. To this they endeavour to accommo-
date the fables of the poetical mythology concerning Jupiter,
and the other gods and goddesses; though many of their ex-
plications were so forced and unnatural, that they were often
ridiculed by other Pagans on the account of them. Dr.
Cudworth also produces a passage from Apuleius to shew,
that all the Pagans throughout the world worshipped one
Supreme God under different names, and by various rites.
*' Numen unicum multiformi specie, ritu vario, nomine
multijugo, totus veneratur orbis." But not to insist upon
it, that by God Apuleius seems there to understand universal
nature, it must be observed, that he and several other Pagan3

(J)) When Seneca here says, " Hunc et Liberum Patrem, et
Herculem, ac Mercurium nostri putant;*' by nostri he does not
mean the Roman people in general, as if they looked upon Ju-
piter, Liber Pater, Hercules, and Mercury, to be one and the
same god; but the Stoics, of which sect he was, and whom ho
elsewhere calls Stoici nostri. Epist. 65.

J24 The Pagan Divinities Part I,

who lived after the introduction of Christianity, made it their
business to put a fair gloss upon the Heathen superstition and
idolatry, and in many instances disguised it. If this plea be
extended, as some of those apologists and refiners of Paga-
nism pretended, to all the popular fleathen deities in gene-
ral, as if they were all no other than so many different
names of the one Supreme God, it would follow that they
acknowledged and worshipped no hero deities at all; than
which nothing can be more contrary to truth and fact. Ac-
cordingly these pretences of the philosophers made little im-
pression upon the people, who had always been used to wor-
ship them as so many distinct personal divinities, and knew
very well, that the public religion regarded them as such.
They were acquainted with the antient traditions concerning
them, and the actions ascribed to them by the poets and my-
thologists, to which many of their sacred rites referred, and
on which they were founded. Tertullian puts the case very
strongly to the Pagans, that they themselves were sensible
that their gods had once been men. He appeals to their own
consciences for the truth of this, and to their most antient
and authentic monuments {d^. The learned Dr. Cudworth,
who seems very fond of the hypothesis of resolving the Pa-
gan divinities into different names of the one Supreme God,
yet finds himself obliged to acknowledge, that " Herology,"
i. e. the history and worship of hero deities, " was inserted

(d) " Appellamus et provocamus a vobis ad conscientiam ves-
tram: ilia nos judicet, ilia nos damnet, si potuerit ne^areomnes
istos Decs vestros homines fuisse. Si et ipsa inficias ierit, de suis
antiquitatum menu mentis revincetur, ex quibus eosdidicit testi-
monium perhibentibus ad hodiernum, et civitaiibus in quibus
nati sunt, et regionibus in quibus aliquid operati, operum vestigia
reliquerunt, in quibus ctiam sepulti demonstrantur." TertuI,
Apolog. cap. 10. Oper. p. U. Edit, Paris, 1675.

Chap. IV. not the one true God. 125

and complicated all along together with physiology, in the
paganic fables of their gods (^ j." Indeed these things
were so blended together, that it was scarce possible to se-
parate them, or to point out distinctly what belonged to the
one, and what to the other: which produced a monstrous
jumble in their religion and worship. And though this excel-
lent writer concludes his account of the Egyptian theology
with declaring his opinion, that " a great part of the Egyp-
tian polytheism was nothing else than the worshipping the
one Supreme God under many different names and no-
tions, as of Hammon, Neith, Osiris, Isis, Serapis, Kneph,
&c. (y^);" yet it appears from the account he himself
gives from Plutarch and others, that their most learned
priests were far from being agreed in their notions of what
was to be understood by Osiris, Isis, Serapis, &c. Some
held them to be different names of the same deity, whom
they supposed to be the whole animated world, but espe-
cially the sun: others held them to be different deities, or
different powers presiding over the air, moisture, &c.; others
gave historical and traditionary accounts of them as of per-
sons that had formerly lived and reigned in Egypt. Por-
phyry makes Serapis to have been an evil daemon (^). And
the Doctor himself, who takes notice of this, thinks it can-
not be doubted, that it was an evil dsemon that delivered
oracles in the temple of Serapis, and affected to be worship-
ped as the Supreme God (A).

I do not deny that some of those, which passed for diffe-
rent deities, were probably at first only different names of
God; but as idolatry increased among the nations, those

(0 Intel, syst. chap. iv. sect. xiv. p. 239.

(/) Ibid. sect. 18. p. 352.

{g) Ap. Euseb. Praep. Evangel, lib. iv. cap. 23. p. 175,

{h) Ubi supra, p. 351,

126 Different Names worshipped Part I.

different names came in process of time to be erected into
different divinities, and were regarded and worshipped by the
people as such. So that, instead of adoring the one Supreme
God under his various names and attributes, they turned
those very names and attributes into so many distinct per-
sonal names of different gods and goddesses, whom they
"worshipped with different and sometimes with contrary rites:
and thus made them an occasion of further polytheism and
idolatry. " The several names of God," saith Dr. Cudworth,
*' were vulgarly spoken of in Greece, as so many distinct
deities (i)." And the same may be observed concerning the
Romans. He elsewhere acknowledgeth, that " the vulgar
probably did not understand that mystery of the Pagan
theology; that many of their gods were nothing but several
names and notions of the one Supreme Deity in its various
manifestations and effects (^)." Lord Herbert himself, who
hath used his utmost efforts to palliate the Pagan polythe-
ism, and to shew that they worshipped the one true God,
the same that we Christians adore, under various names and
attributes, yet owns, that what were at first only different
names, in process of time, as superstition increased, came
to be regarded and worshipped as different gods (/). The

(?) Intel. Syst. p. 260.

Qc) Ibid. p. 447.

(/) His Lordship takes notice of the name of Zivq c-x^Zacrtei,
which was probably derived from the Hebrew Sabaoth, and was
originally designed to signify God's supreme universal domi-
nion, as he is the Lord of Hosts. He was worshipped by the
Athenians; but it does not appear, that under this name they
intended to adore the one Supreme Lord of the universe, but
regarded him as a particular deity, and thus turned him into an
idol. And accordingly Aristophanes inveighs against him as a
strange and foreign divinity, which was lately introduced, and
ought to be banished out of Greece. To this Cicero refers, De
Leg. lib. ii. cap. 15. p. 132.

Chap. IV. as different Deities. I27

same thing is observed by Mr. Selden, who says that in the
sacred hymns the gods were invoked by a variety of names
and epithets; because it was imagined, that this variety of
names was pleasing and honourable to them: but that after-
wards these different names were accounted and worshipped
as different divinities (m). Thus idolatry and polytheism
was making continual advances, even as the nations grew in
learning and politeness.

(m) Seld. De Diis Syris, Proleg. cap. iii. p. 55, 56. Edit.
Lips.

128 The Symbols and Images of the Gods Part h

CHAPTER V.

Farther progress of the Heathen polytheism. The symbols and images of the
Gods turned hito Gods themselves. The Physiology of the Pagans another
source of idolatry. They made Gods and Goddesses of th things of nature,
and parts of the universe, and of whatsoever was useful to mankind. The qua-
lities and affections of the mind, and accidents of life, and even evil qualities
and accidents were deified, and had divine honours rendered to th( m. The
most refined Pagans agreed, according to Dr. Cudworth, in crumbling the
Deity into several parts, and multiplying it into many Gods. They supposed
God to be in a mannej- all things, and therefore to be worshipped in every
thing. Divine honours were paid to evil beings acknowledged to be such. The
Egj'ptian idolatry considered.

As the different names, so also the different symbols in-
vented and made use of to denote the divinity, came
also to be worshipped as gods: such as fire among the Chal-
deans, the cow and bull among the Egyptians. And it is
not improbable, that the other animal gods worshipped by
the Egyptians, the sheep, goat, hawk, ibis, ichneumon, cro«
codile, cat, dog, &c. were at first designed, according to the
wisdom which then obtained, as symbols and hieroglyphical
characters of the Supreme Deity, or some of his attributes;
or, as the learned author of the Divine Legation of Moses
supposes, they were marks of their elementary gods and
heroes (w). But afterwards they worshipped and deified the
symbols themselves, and thereby fell into the most gross and
stupid idolatry, which exposed them to the ridicule of
other Pagans.

The same may be observed concerning the images which
were erected to their deities, and were supposed to have
divine powers residing in them. These very images became

(n) Div. Leg. of Moses, vol. I. part ii. p. 298. 4th Edit.

Chap. V. turned into gods themselves. 129

gods, and were worshipped as such, and had divine honours
rendered to them. And this added mightily to the multitude
of their gods. Plutarch blames the Grecians for calling the
pictures of the gods, and their statues of brass and stone,
gods: whereas they ought only to have called them the
images of the gods (o). How far this was carried among the
Athenians, who are accounted the most knowing as well as
the most religious people in the Heathen world, appears
from a remarkable story recorded by Laertius (^). The
philosopher Stilpo of Megara was brought before the vene-
rable tribunal of the Areopagus at Athens, for saying, that
the statue of Minerva, which was made by Phidias, was
not a god; and though he endeavoured to defend himself by
alleging that it was not a god but a goddess, he was order-
ed by that court, who were not satisfied with this evasion,
to depart the city (^).

Their physiology, as they managed it, was another fruit-
ful source of polytheism. The first physiologers, or they
who first began to philosophize on the nature of things, be-
ing for the most part poets, disguised the simple original
tradition of the creation of the world by allegorical descrip-
tions of the nature and origin of things. I'hey turned the
things of nature and parts of the universe into allegorical
persons, and spoke of them as so many distinct divinities:

(o) Plut. De Isid. at Osir. oper. torn. ii. p. 379. Edit.
Francof.

(/z) Laert. lib. ii. segm. 116.

{q) This is not to be understood, as if the Heathens looked
upon the very images, in themselves considered, to be gods:
for who but a fool, says Celsus, can imagine those images lo be
real gods? But they believed that the gods were both represen-
ted by them, and really present in them, and that therefore they
ought to be the objects of divine worship. See Orig. cont. Cels.
lib. vii. and Arnobius, lib. vi.

Vol. L R

150 The things of Nature and Part L

and at the same time they mixed these physical fables and
allegories with the disguised traditionary accounts of their
antient heroes. Hence it came to pass, that, as hath been ob-
served by the learned, and particularly by Dr. Cudworth,
their cosmogonia, or account of the origin or formation of
the world, became also a theogonia, or account of the gene-
ration of the gods: in which there was a monstrous confu-
sion of gods, daemons, and the things of nature personified.
Such was the theogonia of Hesiod. And thus was the num-
ber of their gods and goddesses strangely multiplied. Balbus
in Cicero, after having taken notice of the deified heroes,
next mentions the physiological fables and allegories, which,
being clothed with hitman forms, furnished fables to the
poets, and filled human life with all manner of superstition.
" Alia quoque ex ratione, et quidem physica, magna eflfluxit
multitudo deorum, qui induti specie humana, fabulas poetis
suppeditaverunt, humanam autem vitam superstitione omni
refercerunt (r)." And in this many of the philosophers
were no less to be blamed than the poets. For they also
deified the things of nature, and the several parts of the
universe, which some of them regarded as the symbols,
others as real parts and members, of the divinity.

Upon the same principles, divinity came to be ascribed to
whatever was useful in human life. Valleius in Cicero in-
forms us, that Persseus, who had been an auditor and dis-
ciple of Zeno, said, that both the inventors of things
which were of great utility in life were accounted gods,
and even the things themselves which were salutary and
beneficial were called by the names of the gods (s), Cotta
says the same thing of Prodicus Chius, and represents him

(r) De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 24. p. 164. Edit. Davis, 2.
(s) Ibid. lib. i. cap. 15. p. 40.

Chap. V. Parts of the Universe deified. 131

as thereby taking away all religion (?). Plutarch also passes
a severe censure upon those as causing absurd and im-
pious opinions, who give the name of gods to things in-
sensible and inanimate, and which the gods have provided
for the use of mankind; as when they call wine Bacchus,
and fire Vulcan; which he thinks is as absurd, as if men
should take the sails and ropes for the master of the ship,
or the potions and medicines for the physician (u). But
Balbus, who is the representative of the Stoics in Cicero,
and who seems to speak Cicero's own sentiments, is of a
different opinion. He thinks it was wisely ordered, both by
the wisest men among the Greeks, and by the antient Ro-
mans, that whatever was of great advantage to human life,
and which they looked upon to be owing to the divine
goodness towards mankind, should be called by the nam«
of the god from whom it came, as when we call corn Ceres,
and wine Bacchus: and that whenever there is any great
force or virtue in any thing, it is proper that that very thing
should be called god {x). Thus did these wise men con-
trive to find out plausible pretences in their great wisdom,
for giving that honour to the works themselves, which
should have been appropriated to God the glorious author;
and, instead of being led by his gifts bestowed upon them
to render due acknowledgments to him the sovereign Do-
nor, they turned those very gifts into deities.

(^) De Nat. Deor. cap. 42. p. 102. This was at length carried
so far, that there was scarce any thing which was of use in hu-
man life, but had divine honours ascribed to it, the meanest
things not excepted, such as the crepitus ventris; because, if
parted with, it tended to the health of the body, and might be
hurtful if suppressed. Seld. De Diis Syris, Proleg. cap. 5. p. 61.
Edit. Lips. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. v. p. 255.

(u) De Is. et Osir. Oper. torn. ii. p. 377. E. .

{x) De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 23. p. 161.

132 Divinity ascribed to Things hurtful^ ^c. Part I.

Balbus goes on, in the place now referred to, to men-
tion the temples which were erected to mind, faith, virtue,
health, concord, honour, victory, liberty; and that be-
cause the force of these things was so great, that it could
not be governed without a god, the thing itself obtamed the
name of god, " Quarum omnium rerum quia vis erat
tanta, ut sine Deo regi non possit, ipsa res Deorum nomen
obtinuit (t/).'*

And this leads to another observation, which shews the
strong bent the Heathens had to polytheism. The qualities
and affections of rational beings, and even the accidents
which relate to them, were made persons of, and turned
into deities, and as such had divine worship paid them.
And this honour was rendered not only to qualities and
accidents that were good and useful, but to those that were
bad and hurtful: " So great was the error," saith Cotta in
Cicero, " that even to pernicious things not only was the
name of gods attributed, but holy rites were instituted.—
Tantus error fuit, ut perniciosis etiam rebus, non modo Deo-
rum nomen tribueretur, sed etiam sacra constituerentar."
And he instances in the temple erected at Rome to the
fever, and an altar to evil fortune (2). And he had before
observed, that tempests were deified and consecrated by
the Roman people (a). An antient monument of which was
dug up in the last century at the Porta Capena (^). Yea, even
the names of vicious things were consecrated; as of lust and
pleasure. " Cupidinis et voluptatis, et lubentinse veneris vo-
cabula consecrata sunt, vitiosarum rerum, neque naturalium
(c)." To this St. Austin refers de Civit. Dei. lib. iv. cap. 8.

(y) DeNat. Deor. p. 162.

(2) Ibid. lib. iii. cap. 35. p. 314.

(a) Ibid. cap. xx. p. 297.

(b) Seld. De Diis Syris, Proleg. cap. iii. p. 59.

Chap. V. The whole worshipped and all its Parts, 133

where he mentions the temple of Volupia, the goddess of
pleasure, so called from voluptas, pleasure; andof Libentina,
the goddess of lust, so called from libido, lust. Varro men-
tions the same goddesses, and gives the same etymology of
their names. And the Athenians, by the advice of Epime-
nides, who passed among them for a great diviner and pro-
phet, erected a temple to contumely and impudence; " t)Cg/{
xosi iveci^iiu" Cicero, who takes notice of this in his Second
Book of Laws, cap. xi. p. 116, 117. passes a just censure
upon it, and condemns the erecting temples and altars to
things hurtful and vicious. But he there approves the erecting
temples to virtuous affections and qualities, as also to things
that are desirable, as health, honour, victory, &c. though
in his Third Book De Natura Deorum, cap. xxiv. he, in
the person of Cotta, represents it as absurd to make deities
of the qualities that are in us, or of the events which befal
us. And Pliny says, " Innumeros quidem [deos] credere,
atque etiam ex virtutibus vitiisque hominum, ut pudici-
tiam, concordiam, mentem, spem, honorem, clementiam,
fidem, aut (ut Democrito placet) duos omnino, posnam et
beneficium, majorem ad socordiam accedit." Hist. Na-
turalis, lib. ii. cap. 7.

Upon the whole, there was scarce any thing in nature,
but what some or other of the Heathens worshipped and
made a god of (d). Lord Herbert, who does all he can to
justify or excuse the Pagan idolatry and polytheism, yet
concludes the tenth chapter of his book De Religione Gen-
tilium, with observing. That the Gentiles did not only
worship the whole world taken together, but its parts, yea

(d) St. Austin has given a long list of Heathen deities, and
the offices assigned to them, from Varro. De Civit. Dei. lib. iv.
cap. 8. And a still larger catalogue of them, ibid. cap. 11. et
cap. 16. et cap. 21. The reader may also see a great number of
them mentioned by Arnobius advers. Gentes, lib. iv. p. 128, et
seq.

154 The whole worshipped and all its Parts, Part I.

even its particles or smaller parts; thinking it unbecoming,
that some of the more eminent parts of him whom they
regarded as God should be worshipped, and other parts ne-
glected. And therefore they judged, that it would be a.
base and impious thing to render worship to this or that
star or element, and reject the others as vile and worthless.
And in worshipping the world as consisting of those parts,
they thought they worshipped the Supreme God in the best
image of the Divinity (e).

Thus there was an universal idolatry introduced and
supported under various pretences, and practised not only
by the vulgar, but by those that put on the appearance of
wisdom and philosophy. I shall here subjoin some observa-
tions of the very learned Dr. Cudworth, relating to this
matter; and I the rather choose to do this, both because
he is known to have searched with great learning and dili-
gence into the depths of the Pagan theology; and because
he cannot be reasonably suspected of a design to aggravate
the charge against them: since, on the contrary, he appears
to have been strongly inclined to represent the state of the
Heathen world in the most favourable light.

'' It cannot be denied," saith that excellent author, " that
the Pagans did in some sense or other deify or theologize
all the parts of the world, or things of nature." And
again, " In their theologizing of physiology, and deifying
the things of nature and parts of the world, they did ac-
cordingly call every thing by the name of God, and God
by the name of every thing. (/)•" To the same purpose he
expresseth himself in several other places. And can any thing
be more dishonourable to the Deity, more unworthy of his
Divine Majesty, or have a worse effect on religion, than

(e) De Relig. Gentil. p. 133, 134. Edit. Amstel. 8vo. 1700.
(/)Intel.Syst. p. 507.515.

Chap. V , The Pagans crumbled the one simple Deity ^ ^c. \Z5

thus in their worship to confound God and the creature,
instead of rendering him that singular honour and adora-
tion which his own infinite perfections and his unparalleled
dignity justly demand from us?

The same celebrated writer observes, that '' the Pagans
in general, even the most refined of them, agreed in these
two things; first, in breaking and crumbling the one sim-
ple deity, and multiplying it into many gods, or parcelling
it out into several particular notions, according to its seve-
ral powers and virtues; and then in theologizing the
whole world, and deifying the natures of things, accidents,
and inanimate bodies. They supposing God to pervade
all things, and himself to be in a manner all things (^)."
And that therefore he might be worshipped in every thing.
This is one remarkable instance, among many which might
be mentioned, of the extravagancies to which human rea-
son is subject; and how apt those are who have the highest
opinion of their own wisdom, when left to themselves,
to draw wrong conclusions from the best principles. So
the Heathens did from the notion of God's universal pre-
sence, and his providence as extended to all his works.
With respect to what Dr. Cudworth calls their crumbling
the one simple deity into parts, he produces a remarkable
passage from Pliny, Nat. Hist. lib. ii. cap. 7. " Fragilis
et laboriosa mortalitas, in partes ista digessit, infirmitatis
suae memor, ut in portionibus quisque coleret, quo maxima
indigeret." Which he translates thus; " Frail and toilsome
mortality has thus broken and crumbled the deity into
parts, mindful of its own infirmity, that so every one, by
parcels and pieces, might worship that in God which him-
self stands most in need of."

To what has been offered concerning the Pagan idolatry.

(JS) Intel. Syst. p. 532, 533.

136 Evil Beiyigs worshipped by the Pagans, Part I.

might be added the worship of dsemons or genii, which
prevailed mightily in the Heathen world. These were ac-
counted a middle kind of beings, inferior to the celestial
gods, but superior to men. There were supposed to be vast
numbers of them, of different kinds, to all of whom they
thought religious worship was due. But not to insist upon
this at present, I would observe, that it was an usual thing
among the Heathens to worship evil beings, and to render
them religious honours, that they might not hurt them.
Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum, having distributed
the whole doctrine relating to the worship of the gods into
seven parts, takes notice in the second and third place, that
they distinguished the gods into those that were favourable
and beneficial to mankind, such as Jupiter, Juno, Mercury,
Ceres, and those that were hurtful, such as the Dirse, Fu-
ries, and Mars, whom, as being cruel and violent, they
endeavoured to appease and conciliate by sacred rites. (A).
And in his treatise De Iside et Osiride, he cites with ap-
probation the opinion of Xenocrates, who speaking of un-
lucky days and festivals, which were celebrated by scourg-
angs, beatings, lamentations, fastings, ill-boding words, and
obscene expressions, would not allow that they were pleasing
or agreeable to the gods or good dsemons; but that there
were in the air about us certain great and powerful natures,
of a cross and morose temper, which take pleasure in those
things, and having obtained them do no farther mischief(z).
And he observes, that the Egyptians were wont on some
occasions to worship Typhon, whom they looked upon to
be an evil power, with certain sacrifices, in order to appease
and console him; though there were solemnities, in which

(h) Plutarch. Oper. torn. ii. p. 880. Edit. Francof. 1620.
(0 Plut. ubi supra, p. 361. B.

Chap. V. Evil Beings worshipped by the Pagans, 137

they reproached and cursed him (k). And in his treatise
De Oraculorum defectu, he makes mention of certain festi-
vals and sacrifices, in which among the sacred rites were
reckoned the eating raw flesh, the tearing of their flesh or
members, ^tectrTrda-^oi^ (for this seems to be the meaning of it
by comparing it with Porphyr. De Abstinentia, lib. ii. sect.
45.) doleftd lamentations, obscene words, furious ravings,
&c. These, he thinks, were instituted for pleasing evil and
malignant daemons, and averting their wrath (/). The same
judgment he passes upon human sacrifices; which, as I shall
have occasion to shew, were very generally off'ered in the
Pagan world, even to those that were accounted their prin-
cipal deities. Porphyry, that zealous and able advocate for
Paganism, affirms, that there are malevolent and noxious
daemons who dwell in the spaces near the earth. He repre-
sents them as the authors of all the calamities which infest
mankind, and that there is no kind of mischief which they
are not ready to attempt: that it is their property to lie; and
that they endeavour to turn men off from right thoughts of
the gods, and to draw their regards to themselves, having
an ambition to be accounted gods: and that the chief and
most powerful among them covets to be esteemed the great-
est or the supreme god (m). And he plainly intimates, that
men generally rendered them religious worship. He says,
that cities found it necessary to appease and humour them
by prayers and sacrifices: it being in the power of those
daemons to bestow riches, and external things relating to
the body; and he gives it as the opinion of the Theologues,
that it is necessary for those who are attached to these ex-

(k) Plut. Oper. tom. ii. p. 362. E.
(/)Ibid. p. 417. CD.

(m) Porphyr. De Abstin. lib. ii. sect. 39', 4©. 43. p. 83, 84.
Edit. Cantabrig. 1655.

Vol. I. S

IM Evil Beings worshipped by the Pagans. Part I#

ternal goods, and cannot as yet restrain and govern their
appetites, to endeavour to avert the wrath and power of
these daemons, otherwise they shall never be free from
troubles and vexations (n). He had before represented it as
a persuasion which generally obtained concerning all the
daemons, whether good or bad, and whether worshipped
under particular names or not, that they will grow angry
and hurt men, if they are neglected, and have not due ho-
nour and worship paid them; and, on the other hand, will
do good to those who endeavour to gratify them, by offering
to them prayers, supplications, and sacrifices. And he says,
that the man that is studious of piety does not 'sacrifice any
thing which has life, i. e. any animal, to the gods, but to
daemons and other beings, both to the good and even to the
bad* '* 'O Ivart^ttcti tp^cvri^av »$ ^doig f/,lv ts B-vircti sf4,i^v^ov is^lv oxt-
fioTi Ti Kx) <eAA«<5 jjTo< iya^oli ^ Ktci ^uvXoi? (o)." Where he sup-
poses that a pious man will worship and offer sacrifices to
evil daemons as well as good beings. The same Porphyry,
as cited by Eusebius, looked upon Hecate, a goddess had
in great veneration among the Pagans [as appears from
Hesiodi Theogonia, vers. 410. et seq. and Potter's Anti-
quities of Greece, vol. i. p. 351.] to be an evil daemon; and
that Serapis, the great Egyptian deity, who, Plutarch tells
us, was the common god of all the Egyptians, and the same
with Osiris (/?), was the chief or prince of evil daemons;
and that many of those who delivered oracles were so (^q^»
Thus we have the testimony of a very eminent Pagan phi-
losopher, and who was a bitter enemy to Christianity, to

(n) Porphyr. De Abstin. lib. ii. sect. 43. p. 86, 87. Edit. Can-
tabrig. 1655.

(o) Ibid. lib. ii. sect. 36, 37. p. 80, 81.

(fi) Plut. De Isid. et Osir. Oper. torn. ii. p. 362.

{q) Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel, lib. iv. cap. 22, 23. p. 174,
175.

Chap. V. Evil Being's worshipped by the Pagans. 139

the truth of what St. Paul declares, that " the things which
the Gentiles sacrificed they sacrificed to devils, [to daemons,
and even evil ones] and not to God." 1 Cor. x. 20. And if
this was true, even of the polite and civilized Heathens
within the limits of the Roman empire, we are the less to
be surprised at the accounts which are given us by authors
of good credit, of the worship that has been paid to evil
beings in some other parts of the world. We are told con-
cerning the antient Zabians, that they worshipped him
whom they called Sammael, and whom they regarded as an
evil spirit, and the prince of the daemons (r). The Persians
worshipped Arimanius, whom they looked upon to be an
evil principle. The like account is given of the people of
Pegu, Decan, Narsinga, and other places in the East-In-
dies. It is said also, that evil spirits are worshipped in Japan,
and in the islands of Formosa, Ceylon, and Madagascar,
The same thing is related of the Hottentots, and other
African nations. The like practice obtained in several parts
of America, particularly among the antient inhabitants of
Canada, Terra Firma, Brasil, and Chili. Most of these na-
tions believe a god or gods, and some of them one Supreme
God, and that he is good; and yet they worship an evil be-
ing or beings, considered as such, from a fear of being
otherwise butt and destroyed by them. This undoubtedly
shews, that the Pagan ideas of a Deity and a Providence
were extremely defective and imperfect; for, if they had
right notions of either, they must have been convinced, that
to worship evil beings is to offer the greatest indignity to
an infinitely wise, powerful, and good God, as if he were
not able to protect his faithful servants and worshippers
against their power and malice. But the Christian revelation

(r) Hettinger Hist. Oriental, lib. i. cap. 8. and Stanley's His-
tory of Philos. p. 1065.

140 The Egyptian Idolatry considered. Part I.

teacheth us to form nobler notions. Happy those that know
how to value and improve so great an advantage! {s)

Some hints were given above of the idolatry of the an-
tient Egyptians: but it may not be improper here to take a
more distinct notice of it. The Egyptians were a nation
antiently very famous for their wisdom and knowledge. He-
rodotus declares, that they " were esteemed to be the wisest
of mankind — " and that " in wisdom they excelled all other
mortals." Lib. ii. cap. 16. et 121. From Egypt, as was
before observed, Greece originally derived her science and
"theology. Diodorus affirms, that most of those among the
Greeks, who were honoured for their understanding and
knowledge, several of whom he particularly mentions, did
in antient times resort to Egypt, that they might be ac-
quainted with the laws and learning of the Egyptians. Yet
no nation became more deeply immersed in idolatry. They
not only paid divine honours to the ibis and ichneumon,
which were useful to them, but to the crocodile, the dog,
cat, and many other animals (t). Some modern writers

(«) The reader may find the instances herd referred to con-
firmed by proper authorities in Millar's History of the Propaga-
tion of Christianity, vol. ii. chap. 7.

(0 They are also charged with worshipping plants, such
as onions, garlick, Sec. Hence Juvenal derides them as having
their gods growing in their gardens. But Mr. Goguet, in his
book De I'Origine des Loix, des Arts, Sec. torn. i. p. 730, 731.
observes, that the most antient and approved writers, who give
any account of the affairs or customs of Egypt, such as Hero-
dotus, Plato, Aristotle, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, make no men-
tion of this singular superstition, which they would not have
omitted, if they had known that the Egyptians practised it. He
thinks Juvenal is the first that has mentioned it. Lucian also
has taken notice of it in his Jupiter Tragoedus. These authors
have been followed by others; but considering the satirical turn

Chap. V. The Egyptian Idolatry considered. 141

have affected not to believe that so wise a nation could be
guilty of an idolatry so stupid. But there is scarce any
thing in all antiquity that comes to us better attested. They
were on this account the objects of ridicule to other Pagan
nations. See to this purpose Cicero De Nat. Deorum, lib.
i. cap. 16 et 29, et lib. iii. cap. 15. See also a passage of
the poet Anaxandrides, in Athen. Deipnosoph. lib. vii.
According to Diodorus, it was hard to make those who had
not been witnesses of it, to believe the extravagancies the
Egyptians were guilty of with regard to their sacred ani-
mals (ii). And^ Philo, who lived among them, charges them
with worshipping dogs, lions, wolves, crocodiles, and many
other animals, both terrestrial and aquatick. And he says,
that all strangers who came into Egj'pt were wont to laugh
at them; and the more sensible travellers beheld them with
astonishment and pity {x), Plutarch expressly says, *' that
the greater part of the Egyptians — Aiyv7f\luv oi TrUxct, wor-
shipping the animals themselves — «vTa ^Zu. B-e^ecTrsveyng"
thereby not only exposed their sacred ceremonies and wor-
ship to derision and contempt, but gave occasion to horrid
conceptions, producing in persons of weak and simple
minds an extravagance of superstition, and precipitating
others of more subtil and daring spirits into atheistical and
brutish opinions (y). An ingenious modern author, who is
loth to believe what is said of the Egyptian idolatry, says,
by way of apology for them, that " the Egyptians did not
adore these things without ascribing certain divine virtues,

for which they are both so remarkable, he thinks they are not
much to be depended upon.

(w) Died. Sic. lib. i. cap. 84.

{x) Philo De Decal. oper. p. 755. E.

(t/) Plut. De Isid. et Osir. oper. torn. ii. p. Sf 9. D. E. But
from these must be excepted the inhabitants of Thebais; if what

142 The Egyptian Idolatry consider ed* Part I.

to them, or considering them as symbols of some invisible
power (z)." But if it were so, it furnishes a remarkable
instance of the vanity of human wisdom, if left to itself in
matters of religion. For the symbols and hieroglyphics,
upon which the wise men of Egypt so much valued them-
selves, and in which such profound wisdom and science
was supposed to be contained, proved to be an occasion of
leading the people into the most absurd and senseless ido-
latry; to which they continued inviolably attached, not-
withstanding all the ridicule cast upon them, for it by other
nations. Cotta in Cicero observes, that they shewed a
greater regard to the beasts which they worshipped, than
other nations did to their most holy temples and images:
that there had been many instances of temples spoiled and
images of the gods taken away out of the most holy places
by the Romans: but it had never been heard of, that a cro-
codile, an ibis, or a cat, had been ill treated by the Egyp-
tians. " Firmiores videas apud eos opiniones de bestiis
quibusdam, quam apud nos de sanctissimis templis et simu-
lacris deorum. Etenim fana multa expoliata, et simulacra
deorum de locis sanctissimis ablata vidimus a nostris; at
vero ne fando quidem auditum est, crocodilum, aut ibin,
aut felem violatum ab Egyptiis." De Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap.
29. See also Tuscul. Disput. lib. v. cap. 27.

the same author informs us of be true, that when the other
Egyptians paid their proportion of the taxes and contributions, ap-
pointed by the laws, towards maintaining the sacred animals, the
inhabitants of Thebais alone did not pay any thing, as thinking
there is no mortal god; but worship him whom they call Kneph,
as being unbegotten or unmade, and immortal. Ibid. p.
359. D.

(2) Chevalier Ramsay's Principles of Natural and Revealed
Relig^ion, vol. ii. p. 56.

Chap. VI. Three kinds of Theology among the Pagans. 143

CHAPTER VI.

The Pagan theology distributed by Varro into three different kinds: the poetical
or fabulous, the civil, and the I'hilosophical. The poetical or fabulous theology
considered. The pretence, that we ought not to judge of the Pagan religion
by the poetical mythology, examined. It is shewn, that the popular religion
and worship was in a great measure founded upon that mythology, which ran
through the whole of their religion, and was of great authority with the people.

V ARRO, who was accounted the most learned of the
Romans, speaks of three different kinds of theology among
them: the mythical or fabulous, the physical or natural, and
and the civil or popular. The first is that of the poets; the
second that of the philosophers; the third is that which is
established by public authority and the laws, and which is
in use among the people (d). The famous Roman pontiff
and lawyer Scsevola makes the same distinction (b). So also
does Plutarch (c).

It will be proper, in order to form a right judgment of
the state of religion among the Pagans, to take a view of
these different kinds of theology.

As to the mythical or fabulous theology, which was
that of the poets, it is condemned in strong terms both by
Scsevola and Varro. The former passes this just censure
upon it, that it was nugatory, and that in it many unwor-
thy things were feigned concerning the gods. And par-
ticularly he observes, that " they make one god steal,
another to commit adultery; they represent three god-

(a) Apud Augustin. De Civit. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 5.

(b) Ibid. lib. iv. cap. 27.

144 Of the poetical Theology. Part I.

desses contending for the prize of beauty, and that two of
them in revenge for its being adjudged to Venus subverted
Troy; that Jupiter himself was converted into a bull or
a swan, that he might debauch some woman he had
a fancy for; that a goddess married a man; that Saturn
devoured his own children; and, in fine, nothing can be
imagined so monstrous or so vicious, but it may be found
in the fables attributed to the gods, however foreign to
their nature. — Sic deos deformant, ut nee bonis hominibus
comparentur; cum alium faciunt furari, alium adulterare;
tres inter se deas certasse de praemio pulchritudinis, victas
duas a Venere Trojam evertisse; Jovem ipsum convert! in
bovem aut cygnum, ut cum aliqua concumbat; deam ho-
mini nubere; Saturnum liberos devorare: nihil denique
posse confingi miraculorum atquse vitiorum quod non ibi
reperiatur, atque ab deorum natura longe absit (^)." Varro
passes the same judgment upon the fabulous poetical
theology which Scsevola did. And, after mentioning some
of the same absurdities, and others of the like kind, he
concludes with saying, that " all things are attributed to
the gods, which men, and even the vilest and worst of
men, could be guilty of. — Omnia diis attribuuntur, quae non
modo in hominem, sed etiam quae in contemtissimum homi-
nem cadere possunt (^)." And long before them Plato had
accused Hesiod, as guilty of the greatest falshood, and
that in a matter of the utmost importance, when he men-
tions such wicked things to have been perpetrated by
Cselus, and his son Saturn; which, he thinks, if true, ought
not to have been mentioned, especially to inconsiderate and

{d) Augustin. De Civ. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 27. p. 84. E. Edi
Rened.

(<?) Ibid. lib. vi. cap. 5. p. 1 16. E.

Chap. V. Of the poetical Theology, 145

young persons, but to have been buried in silence, or
communicated only to a few. He pronounces these fables,
to be pernicious, and not fit to be heard in a well-ordered
commonwealth. And afterwards mentioning what Ho-
mer says of the quarrel between Jupiter and Juno, and
Vulcan's being hurled down by Jupiter from heaven for
taking Juno's part, as also what the same poet relates con-
cerning the battles and contentions of the gods, he de-
clares, that these stories are not to be admitted, whether
they are pretended to have an hidden allegorical meaning
or not. See his second book De Republica, at the latter
end (y). Cicero also passes a severe censure upon the
poetical fables (^).

Considering this and other passages to the same purpose,
which occur in some of the most eminent Pagan writers,
it may be looked upon as an unfair thing to judge of the
antient religion of the Heathens by the writings of the
poets and mythologists. And accordingly they, who en-
deavour to represent that religion in the most advantageous
light, are for entirely discarding the poetical mythology.
This is Lord Herbert's scheme. He mightily inveighs
against the poets, as having confounded and polluted the
Heathen theology, and left nothing sound or pure in their
history or religion; and that therefore no regard is to be
had to them in this matter (Ji),

(/) Plat. Oper. Ficin. p. 429, 430. Edit. Lugd. 1590.

(§•) De Nat. Debr. lib. i. cap. 16. et lib. ii. cap. 28.

(A) " Licentia quippe poetica usi musarum alumni, ita omnia
temerabant, ut quid ad alterutras spectet partes nemo facile in-
venerit. — Facessant igitur, et ab ipsa gentilium theologia exulcnt
poetae; non solum quippe veras heroum historias, ex fabularum
interpolatione suspectas, ne dicam falsas, etiam mortalium cre-
dulissimis reddiderunt: sed et fabulas hasce mysticis involu-
tisque quibusdam, circa coelum, astra, et elementa doctrinis, ad-

VoL. I. T

146 The Poets the Prophets of the Pagans, Part I.

And vet certain it is, that in examining into the religion
of the antient Gentiles, the poetical mythology, notwith-
standing the censures so freely bestowed upon it, must ne-
cessarily be considered. It may justly be affirmed, that
the writings of the poets tend to give us the truest idea of
the Pagan religion, as it obtained even among the polite
and learned nations of Greece and Rome, and as it was
established by public authority. Whosoever will carefully
consult the account given by Potter, in his excellent anti-
tiquities of Greece, of the numerous sacred festivals and
rites observed and celebrated in Greece, and especially at
Athens, will find that they are almost all founded upon
the fables of the poetical mythology (i). The same may
be said of many of those observed by the antient Ro-
mans.

The poets, as Dr. Cudworth observes, were the pro-
phets of the Pagans, and pretended to a kind of divine
inspiration. And though he treats them as the great de-
pravers of the Pagan theology, yet he says, "they im-
bued the minds of the vulgar with a certain sense of reli-
gion, and the notions of morality (^)." And that " we
cannot make a better judgment concerning the vulgar and
generality of the antient Pagans than from the poets and
jny thologists, who were the chief instructors of them ( / )."
And to this purpose he observes, that Aristotle, in his Po-^
litics, lib. viii» cap. 5. writing of music, judgeth of men's

miscentes, nihil integrum, nihil sanum, vel in historia, vel in
ipsa religione reliquere." Herb. De Relig. Gentil. cap. xi. p.
135. Edit. Amstel. 8vo.

(i) See Potter's Antiquities, vol. i. lib, 2. chap. 30. from p.
326 to p. 40r.

{k) Intel. Syst. p. 355.

^) Ibid. p. 448.

GiiAP. VI. The Poets the Prophets of the Pagans, 14f

opinions concerning the gods by the poets. " We may
learn," says Aristotle, '' what opinion men have of the
gods from hence, because the poets never bring in Jupitet
singing, or playing on an instrument." Varro tells us, that
" with regard to what relates to the generation of the gods,
the people v»^ere more inclined to the poets than to the na-
tural philosophers: and that therefore their ancestors, the
antient Romans, believed the sexes and generations, and
marriages of the gods (w)." And though Plato, in the pas-
sage above referred to in the second book of his Republicj,
disapproves the fables of the poets and raythologists, even
if they should be allegorically interpreted, yet such was
the authority of those fables and traditions, than in his
Timaeus, one of his best and latest treatises, he dares not
openly reject them. He declines treating of the generation
of the gods or daemons, under pretence that these things
were too high for him. And then adds, " We are to believe
those who before had given an account of these things, as
being sprung from the gods, as they themselves declare^
and who therefore must have known their own progenitors*
For," says he, " it is impossible not to believe the soriS
of the gods, though they give no necessary or probable
reasons for what they say. But, it becomes us, following,
what the law directs, lieoi^iva^ ra rof/.ety to give them credit^
as speaking of their own proper affairs (?i)." And then he
goes on to mention some of the things delivered in Hesiod's

(m) " Dicit Varro de generationibus deorum magis ad poetaS
qu^m ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos, et ideo et sexum ct
generationes deorum, majores sues, id est veteres credidisse
Romanes, et eorum constituisse conjugia." Ap. Augustin^
C. D. lib. iv. cap. 32. p. 88.

(n) Plat. Oper. Ficin. p. 530. F. O^

148 The Fables of the poetical Mythology Part L

Theogonia. Plato seems here to insinuate the true reason
why he did not think fit to reject those traditions. It is be-
cause they were favoured and authorized by the laws.

The same celebrated philosopher, in his Ion, in the
person of Socrates, gives such an account of the poets,
as must needs tend greatly to strengthen their authority
with the people. His design there is to shew, that poetry,
and the interpretation of it, is not merely the effect of art
or industry, but owing to a kind of divine afflatus. The
poet cannot sing, says he, " except he be full of God, and
carried out of himself." And again, *' They do not say
these things by art, but by a divine power. — " 'Ou y<eg
Tixn txvTtt, xiyao-iv »xx» Bit» .3uv«^g«:" or, as he had expressed
it just before, B-iU fiti^x: that " God uses them as his mi-
nisters, as he does the deliverers of oracles and divine pro-
p|iets, that we hearing them might know, that it is not they
themselves who speak those excellent things, since they
have not then the use of their understanding, but that it is
God that speaks by them; and that the poets are no other
than the interpreters of the gods, OJ 2e 9r«<»T«/ i^iv <«aa' S i^^iuTt
uTi reSv S-iSv — whilst they are thus inspired, by whatever god
they are possessed (o)." And Socrates, in his Apology to
his Judges, gives the same idea of poetry and the poets. He
represents them as acting not by their own wisdom, but by
a certain divine instinct or afflatus, like the prophets of
God and deliverers of oracles— " uttb^ ci B-eof^MVTti^ kxi o} xin^'

Many passages might be quoted from eminent Pagan
writers, expressing their approbation of the poets, and
their theology. A passage was cited above from Dio
Chrysostomus, orat. 36. in which he plainly intimates the

(o) Plat. Oper. p. 145. F. G.
(/?) Ibid. p. 360. G.

Chap. VI. allegorized by the Stoics, 149

great authority which the poets and their theology had
with the people; and that it was to the Jupiter of the
poets that men every where erected altars and paid their
devotions. Max. Tyrius, speaking of Homer's represen-
tations of the deities, says, that " the ignorant man hears
them as fables, but the philosopher as realities," and
he mentions it to his praise, that " to Homer no part of
the world is without a God, nor destitute of a ruler, or
without government; but all things are full of divine names,
and a divine art (^)." And Proclus, in Tim. Plat, speaking
of the divine Homer, as he calls him, saith, that "through-
out all his poetry he praises Jupiter as the highest of all
Rulers, and the father of gods and men; and attributes all
demiurgical notions to him (r)."

The Stoics, who were the most rigid sect of Pagan phi-
losophers, were not for rtjecting the poetical fables; but
endeavoured to explain them in an allegorical way. Zeno,
as Velleius in Cicero observes, in interpreting Hesiod's
Theogonia, attributed the names of Jupiter, Juno, Vesta,
to natural and inanimate things (s)» And Cotta upbraids the
Stoics, that instead of confuting those fables, they confirm-
ed them by their interpretations. " Vestri autem," says he
to Balbus the Stoic, " non modo hsec non refellunt, vorum

(q) Max. Tyr. Dissert. 16. p. 198. Edit. Oxen. 1677.

(r) Ap. Cudw. Intel. Syst. p. 360. One part of the charge ad-
Tanced against the poets by Dr. Cudworth and others is, " that
they personated the several inanimate parts of the world, and
things of nature, which produced a number of gods and god-
desses." But this charge lies equally against some of the most
celebrated philosophers; for they also deified the things of na-
ture, and the parts of the world. And this was, by that learned
writer's own ncknowledgment, the prevailing philosophy.

(s) De Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 14. p. 38.

150 The Poetical Fables allegorized by the Stoics, Part L

etiam confirmant, interpretando quorsum quidque perti*
neat (?)." He- ridicules them for taking a great deal of
pains to little purpose, in endeavouring to give reasons for
fictitious fables, as if there was much wisdom contained in
them: as also for their etymological accounts of the names
of the gods: and he intimates, that the pains they took to
explain these things shewed that the accounts they gave
were forced, and contrary to the general opinion. " Magnam
molestiam suscepit et minime necessariam primus Zeno,
post Cleanthes, deinde Chrysippus, commentitiarum fabu-
larum reddere rationem: vocabulorum, cur quique ita ap-
pellati sint, causas explicare. Quod cum facitis, illud pro-
fecto confitemini, longe aliter se rem habere, atque hominum
opinio sit. («)."

How much the poetical theology prevailed, and what a
regard was had to the fables of the mythologists, among
the generality of the Pagans, and even among the Athe-
nians themselves, the most learned and religious people in
Greece, appears from the treatment Socrates met with for
opposing those fables, as he himself intimates in Plato's
Euthyphron. He there particularly refers to the fabulous
traditions concerning Saturn's castrating and dethroning his
father Caelus, and Jupiter's casting his father Saturn into
prison for devouring his sons, by which Euthyphron endea-
voured to justify himself for prosecuting his own father.
Socrates, whose design it is to make him sensible of the
absurdity of the literal sense of those fables, tells him, that
this was the very thing for which he [Socrates] was accus-
ed, because when he heard any man say such things of the
gods, he shewed his dislike of them (x).

(t) De Nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 23. p. SI 2.

(m) Ibid. cap. 24. p. 314.

(a^) Plato Oper. Ficin. p. 49. F. Edit. Lugd. 1590«

Ch. VI. Pernicious tende^icy of the poetical Theology, 151

After Christianity made its appearance in the world, the
Pagans, when charged with the absurdities of the mytho-
logical fables, were wont to throw it off, by pretending,
that these were only poetical fictions. But from the ob-
servations which have been made it sufficiently appears,
that, in considering the Pagan theology, a particular re-
gard must be had to the mythology of the poets, which
was wrought into the popular religion, and lay at the foun-
dation of most of their sacred rites, and public worship.
And yet nothing can give us a more melancholy idea of the
state of religion among the antient Heathens, even in the
most polite and civilized nations. The system of the poe-
tical theology was full of the genealogies, the rapes, the
adulteries, the contentions of their gods. These things
were acted on the theatres with the applause and approba-
tion of the people. These were the deities, to whom tem-
ples and altars were erected, and sacrifices offered; to whose
statues they paid divine honours, and whom the poets sung
in all the charms of flowing numbers.

Eusebius has some just observations with regard to the
Pagan mythology, which it may not be amiss to mention
in this place. The substance of what he says is this.
That when the antients deified their princes and great
men, and the inventors of useful things, being filled with
admiration, they made them the objects of their worship,
and applied the venerable idea they had of God in their
minds, to those their kings and benefactors. They car-
ried their respect for them to such a degree of extrava-
gance, as to celebrate all their actions, even their acts
of violence, their lewdnesses, their wars, and contentions;
the memory of which, as of some great exploits, was
transmitted with applause to posterity, and entered into
the worship that was paid to them, being mixed with the
ideas of their divinity. But afterwards, some of later
times, and who were comparatively of yesterday, being

152 Pernicious tendency of the poetical Theology • Part L

ashamed of these things, and pretending to a more subtile
kind of philosophy, endeavoured to turn them into alle-
gory, and interpreted them as signifying physical causes,
and the phcenomena of nature. But he very properly ob-
serves, that though they used their utmost efforts, by
forced explications, to put a plausible colour upon the
theology of the antients, and the stories of their gods,
yet none of them attempted to make the least alteration in
the antient religious rites, which v;ere founded on the li-
teral sense of those stories; but were rather for preserving
them, and professed a great veneration for the religion de-
rived to them from their ancestors, of which these things
made a part (z/).

To this judgment of Eusebius, concerning the fables of
the antient mythology, may be added that of Dionysius
Halicarnasseus. This celebrated critic and historian, in the
first book of his Roman History, does not deny that some
of those fables might possibly in some cases be of use; yet
observes, that small was the benefit which could accrue
from them, and this only to those who could penetrate into
their hidden meaning and design. But "that few there w;ere
who attained to this kind of philosophy: and the rude and
unlearned multitude loved to take those stories concerning
the gods in the grossest sense, and Were thereby in danger
either of contemning the gods, or of giving themselves an
unrestrained liberty in committing the basest and wickedest
actions, when they saw that the gods themselves warranted
them by their practice. This passage of Dionysius is cited
with approbation by Lord Herbert, De Relig. Gentil. cap,
xi. p. 130, et 136. Edit. Amstcl. 8vo.

(y) Prsepar. Evangel, lib. ii. cap. 6. p. 73, 74. Edit. Paris,
1628.

Chap.VII. The civil theology of the Pagans considered. 153

CHAPTER VII.

The civil theology of the Pagans considered. That of the antient Romans has
been much commended, yet became in process of time Utile less absurd than
the poetical, and in many instances was closely connected and complicated
■with it. The pernicious consequences of this to religion and morals. Some ac-
count of the absurd and immoral rites which were antiently practised in the
most civilized nations, and which made a part of their religion; being either
prescribed by the laws, or established by customs which had the force of laws.
The politicians and civil magistrates took no effectual methods to rectify this,
but rather countenanced and abetted the popular superstition and idolatry.

Jb ROM the poetical or fabulous let us proceed to the
civil theology of the Pagans, which was the public and
authorized religion, established by the legislators and the
magistrates, or chief men of the community, the Prin-
cipes Civitatis, as Varro calls them. And this is the ra-
ther to be considered, as it was that which the philoso-
phers themselves, whatever private opinions or speculations
they might entertain, or dispute of in their schools, uni-
versally conformed to in their own practice, and also ex-
horted others to do so. It must therefore be allow^ed by all,
that from this we may justly take our measures of the state
of religion in the Heathen world. Varro describes it to be
that which ought to be known and practised by the citizens,
and which was administered by the priests: and that it par-
ticularly determined what gods they were publickly to wor-
ship, what sacred rites they were to observe, and what
sacrifices to offer. " Quod in urbibus cives, maxime sacer-
dotes, nosse et administrare debent. In quo est, quos deos
publice colere, quae sacra et sacrificia facere quem^ue par
sit (a)."

{a) Varro ap. August. C. D. lib. vi. cap. 5. p. 117,
Vol. I. U

154 That of the Romdns preferable to the Greeks, Part L

And in considering the civil theology of the Pagans, I
shall have a particular regard to that of the Romans.
Dionysius Halicarnasseus praises the Roman institutions of
religion, especially those vi^hich were appointed at the first
establishment of their state. He observes, that they made
use of the best of the Grecian Institutions, but did not
admit any of those fables of theirs which contained things
unworthy of the gods into the public religion. And that
in what related to the sacred ceremonies and worship of the
gods all things were done with a becoming piety and gra-
vity, in which they far excelled both Greeks and Bar-
barians (J?), The ordering of the public religion was all
along in the hands of the wisest and greatest men of the
state. Cicero, in his Oratio pro domo sua ad Pontifices,
extols the wisdom of their ancestors in appointing, that the
same persons who had the chief administration in civil
affairs, should also preside over the ceremonies of religion.
He speaks of the office of the priests with great respect; and
tells them, that the honour and safety of the Commonwealth,
the public liberty, the houses and fortunes of the citizens,
and the gods themselves, were committed to their wisdom
and care. And in his Oratio de Haruspicum Responsis, he
mentions it as the peculiar praise of the Romans, that they
were the most religious of all people, and excelled all na-
tions Jn piety, and especially in this eminent point of wis-
dom; that they clearly perceived that all things are governed
by the providence and divinity of the immortal gods (c).

{b) Dion. Halic. Histor. lib. ii.

(c) " Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, ipsi nos amemus,
tamen nee numero Hispanos, nee robore Gallos, nee calliditate
Poenos, nee artibus Grsecos, nee denique hoc ipso hujus gentis
et terras domestico nativoque sensu, Italos ipsos ac Latinos; sed
pietate ac religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod Deorum im-

Chap. VII. TJie public worship among the Pagans, 155

Let us therefore enquire how the public religion stood
with the antient Romans.

It is a general observation, which affects the whole civil
theology of the Pagans, that of the Romans, as well as of
other Heathen nations, that the public worship which was
instituted by their most celebrated legislators, and prescrib-
ed and established by the laws of their several cities and
countries, was paid not to one only God, but to a multipli-
city of deities. In the passage now quoted from Cicero,
when he so highly extols the religion of the antient Romans,
he takes particular notice of this, that they were persuaded
that all things are governed by the divinity of the immortal
gods. Their religion therefore was properly polytheism.
And the providence they acknowledged was the providence
not of one God, but of many gods. Lord Bolingbroke in-
deed has taken upon him to affirm, " that the worship of
this multiplicity of gods, did not interfere with the Supreme
Being in the minds of those who worshipped them (^)."
But I cannot see upon what foundation this can be pretend-
ed. The same author elsewhere speaking of the crowd of
fflpinities among the Heathens, declares, that " they inter-
cepted the worship of the Supreme Being; and that this
monstrous assemblage made the object of vulgar adora-
tion (^)." It was to prevent this that all manner of worship
of inferior deities was so strictly prohibited in the law of
Moses, and the people were expressly commanded to have
no other gods but one; to worship the one true God, the
Creator of the universe, and him only; whereby it was glo-

mortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, om-
nes gentes nationesque superavimus." Orat. De Harusp. Re-
spons. N. 9.

(d) Bol. Works, vol. v. p. 505. Edit. 4to.

(e) Ibid. vol. iv. p. 80, and 461,

156 The public worship among the Pagans Part I.

riouslv distinguished from all other laws and constitutions.
This constitution was peculiar to the Jews (y ) and its being
tstablished among them was owing not merely to the supe-
rior wisdom of their lawgiver, but to his having had the
advantage of an extraordinary revelation from God, the
authority of which was confirmed by a series of the most
illustrious divine attestations. Whereas among other na-
tions, where the worship of many gods was countenanced
and established by the laws, they lost and confounded the
knowledge and worship of the one true God amidst a mul-
tiplicity of idol deities, and served and worshipped the
creature more than the Creator.

The learned Dr. Cudworth, though very much inclined

(/) Dr. Hyde, in his celebrated book De Religione veterum
Persarum, has taken great pains to shew that the antient Persians
worshipped the one true God. Some persons of great learning
and judgment have thought that his authorities were not suffi-
cient. But if we allow the account he gives to be a just one,
they were instructed, as he observes, in the true antient patri^
archal religion by their great progenitors Shem and Elam, who
derived it from Noah and Adam, to whom it originally came
by divine revelation. And, upon their deviating from it, the pa-
triarch Abraham introduced a reformation among them; and
when they again lapsed into the sabaitical idolatry, they were
reformed by Zerdusht or Zoroaster, who lived in the reign of
Gushtasp Loroasp, or Darius Hystaspes. And this Zerdusht, ac-
cording to the accounts given of him by Dr. Hyde from the
oriental writers, must have learned the principal things in his
religion from the Jews; having been a disciple of one of the
Jewish prophets, and having incorporated many of the rites
prescribed in the law of Moses into his own. This is what the
learned Doctor sets himself particularly to shew in his tenth
chapter, the title of which runs thus; " Persarum religio in mul-
tis convenit cum Judaica, et ab ea magna ex parte desumpta
fuit.'»

Chap. VII. paid to a midtiplieity of Deities. 157

to put the most favourable construction upon the "Pagan
theology, acknowledges, that "the civil theology, of the
Pagans, as well as the poetical, had not only many phantas-
tic gods in it, but an appearance of a plurality of indepen-
dent deities; it making several supreme in their several
territories and functions: as one to be the chief ruler over
the heavens, another over the air, another over the sea, one
to be the giver of corn, another of wine, &c." And he pro-
duces a remarkable passage from Aristotle, in which he
argues against Zeno thus. "Whereas Zeno takes it for
granted, that men have an idea in their minds of God, as
one the most excellent and powerful being of all: this doth
not seem to be according to the law; for there the gods
seem to be mutually better one than another, respectively
to several things. And therefore Zeno took not this account
of mankind from that which vulgarly seemeth (^)." Here
Aristotle intimates, that according to the laws of cities and
countries, that is in the civil or political theology, there
seems to be no one absolutely powerful or all-perfect Be-
ing, but a plurality of gods, one of which is supposed to be
more powerful as to one thing, another as to another.

I do not deny that even the vulgar among the Pagan
polytheists seem for the most part to have had some notion
of one Supreme God. It was before observed, that the
Jupiter in the Capitol was regarded by the Romans as the
chief god in their religion, and the supreme object of
their public worship. But it was shewn, that this Jupiter
was confounded, in the popular notion, with the chief of
the hero deities. They attributed to him a superiority
over the other gods, but seem to have regarded him as
one of the same kind, though of greater eminency than

(g) See Aristotle's treatise De Xenophane, Zenone, et Gorgia
Opcr. torn. i. p. 1246. Edit. Paris 1629,

1 51 The public Worship paid to Part I.

the rest. Accordingly they were worshipped in conjunc-
tion with him: and it was common with the Pagans in
general to speak of God and the gods promiscuously, be-
cause they considered them all as making up one system,
and as joint-sharers in the government of the world; having
each of them their several territories and functions, as Dr.
Cudworth expresses it in the passage above quoted from
him. Servius on those words of Virgil, Georgic. lib. i.
vers. 21.

" Dique deaeque omnes studium quibus arva tueri,"

observes, that, after a special invocation, he proceeds to a
general one, lest any deity should be neglected. And he
acquaints us, that this was agreeable to the constant cus-
tom of the priests, who, according to an antient rite in all
their sacred ceremonies and devotions, after addressing
themselves to the particular deities, to whom at that time
it was necessary to offer up prayers and sacrifices, were
wont to invoke all the gods in general. " Post specialem
invocationem transit ad generalitatem, ne quod numen
prsetereat, more pontifi cum, per quos, ritu veteri, in omni-
bus sacris, post speciales Deos, quos ad ipsum sacrum quod
fiebat necesse erat invocare, generaliter omnia numina invo-
cabantur.'*

This general view of the civil and popular theology of
the Pagans might be sufficient to shew the sad state of re-
ligion among them. But it will set this in a stronger light if
we consider more particularly what has been already hinted,
that there was a very close connexion between their civil
theology, and that which is called the fabulous and poeti-
cal. The public religion was, as Dr Cudworth acknow-
ledges, " a strange mixture, made up partly of the physi-
cal, partly of the poetical theology.'* And even with res-
pect to Jupiter Capitolinus, he saith in a passage before
quoted from him, that " it is plain, that here there is a

Chap, VII. the civil and poetical Pagan Theology. 159

certain mixture of the mythical or poetical theology, to-
gether with the natural, as almost every where else there
was, to make up the civil theology of the Pagans (A).''
It is true, that those great men Scaevola and Varro passed
a severe censure upon the mythology of the poets, as
making unworthy representations of the gods; and recom-
mend the civil theology, which was established by the laws,
and administered by the priests, as that which alone the
people ought to follow. And yet it is capable of a clear
proof, that in fact no small part of the civil theology was
founded upon the poetical mythology, or traditionary fables
of the gods. This is what St. Austin has strongly urged
against Varro in several parts of his great work De Civi-
tate Dei. He very properly observes, that those poetical
fables which Varro censures as unworthy of the gods, and
as ascribing to them actions which none but the vilest of
men could be guilty of, were not only permitted to be acted
on the public theatres, and heard with pleasure by the
people, but that they were regarded as things pleasing to
the gods themselves, by which they were propitiated and
rendered favourable. And accordingly they were taken into
the public religion (i). Games were celebrated, and plays
founded upon them. Those fables were appointed to be
acted by way of expiation to appease the gods; as if the ex-
hibiting the representations of their own vicious exploits
were the best way of putting them into good humour, and

(A) Intel. Syst. p. 450.

(£) St. Austin upon this occasion exclaims, " O religiosas
aures populares, alque in his etiam Romanas! Quod de diis
immortalibus philosophi disputant ferre non possunt: Quod vero
poetae canunt, et histriones agunt — non solum ferunt, sed etiam
libenter audiunt. Neque id tantum, sed diis quoque ipsis hsec
placere, et per haec eos placandos esse? deccrnunt." De Civ»
Dei. lib. vi. cap. v. p. 11 7.

160 The close connexion between Part I<

averting the tokens of their displeastire. Speaking of Ju-
piter's adulteries, and of his ravishing Ganymede, and
carrying him off to be his cup-bearer, he quotes that pas-
sage of Tully. " Fingebat haec Homerus, et humana ad
deos transferebat, divina mallem ad nos" — i. e. " Homer
feigned these things, and ascribed human actions and
qualities to the gods; I had rather he had raised men to an
imitation of the divine (y^)." Upon which he asks, " Gur
ergo ludi scenici, ubi hsec dictitantur, cantitantur, actitantur,
eorum honoribus exhibentur? Inter res divinas a doctissi-
mis conscribuntur? — Why then are those plays in which
these things are frequently said, sung, and acted, exhibited
to the honour of the gods? And reckoned among sacred
things even by the most learned? Here," adds he, *' Cicero
might justly blame not the fictions of the poets, but the
institutions of their ancestors; who yet might plead for
themselves, that these were things which the gods required,
who threatened to mflict punishments if they were neglected,
and shewed themselves pleased and gratified with the ob-
servation of them." Of which he produces an instance out
of the Roman history, which is also related by Livy and
Valerius Maximus (/). That learned Father frequently in-
sists upon this as a thing pubhckly known, and which could
not be denied, that the public games and plays, in which the
flagitious actions of their gods were represented, were on
certain occasions considered as acts of religion, encouraged
by their deities, and celebrated as in honour to them (w).
Arnobius, who was very well acquainted with the Pagan
rites and usages, makes the same observation, and particu-
larly mentions Plautus's Amphytrio, as one of the plays

{k) Tuscul. Disput. lib. i. cap. 26.
{I) De Civ. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 26.
(m) Ibid. lib. ii. cap. 25, 26, 27.

Chap. VII. the civil and poetical Pagan Theology* 161

which were thus acted (n). The same Arnobius justly up-
braids the Heathens for ascribing the most base and unwor-
thy actions to him whom they described as the Father
of gods and men, the chief god, the Thunderer, who
shakes heaven with his nod, and to whom they attributed
the most divine titles. He thinks, that if they had any
regard to piety or decency, the public authority ought to in-
terpose, by forbidding such representations. Instead of which
they encouraged them, and admitted them into their re-
ligion; whereas they would punish any man who should
cast such reflections upon a senator or magistrate (o). And
it is a pertinent remark of St. Austin, that the Dii selecti,
which were of the highest dignity, and concerning whom
Varro wrote a particular treatise, had worse things said of
them than the gods of an inferior order (/?).

To shew the near connexion there was between the
civil and poetical theology, it is observed by the same au-
thor, that the images, forms, habits, and ornaments of their
gods, their different sexes and ages, as represented in their
temples, and the sacred festivals instituted to their honour,
had all of them a reference to the fables of the poets and
mythologists, and were founded upon them. And it is
therefore with reason that he pronounces, that both the
civil and the fabulous theology might each of them be
called civil and each fabulous. The learned Dr. Cudworth,

(n) Arnob. advers. Gentes, lib. vii. p. 238. Edit. var. Lugd*
Bat.

(o) Arnob. advers. Gentes, lib. iv. p. 140, 141. 149, 150.

(Ji) The select gods, of whom Varro treats, were twenty in
number, twelve males, and eight females. Janus, Jupiter, Saturn,
Genius, Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Vulcan, Neptune, the Sun,
Orcus, Liber Pater, Tellus, Ceres, Juno, Luna, Diana, Minerva,
Venus, Vesta. Ap. August. De Civ. Dei, lib. vii. cap. 2. p. 125;
©t cap. 4. p. 127.

162 The close Connexion between Part I.

who sometimes seems to think the fathers carried their
charges against Paganism too far, yet approves this obser-
vation, and says, " it is truly affirmed by St. Austin, con-
cerning their mythical or fabulous, and their political or
civil theology, that both the fabulous theology of the Pagans
was in part their civil, and their civil was fabulous (q)» —
Et civilis et fabulosa, ambse fabulosse sunt, ambaeque civiles.
Ambas inveniet fabulosas, qui vanitates et obscsenitates am-
barum prudenter inspexerit: ambas civiles, qui scenicos
ludos pertinentes ad fabulosam, in deorum civilium festivi-
tatibus, et in urbium divinis rebus, adverterit (r). Yea," he
says, "that things may be found in the books which treat
of religion, and the sacr-ed rites, which grave poets have
thought unfit to be the subject of their verses. — Ista in re-
rum divinarum libris reperiuntur, quae graves poetse suis
carminibus indigna duxerunt (*)."

These things must needs have had the most pernicious
consequences in exposing religion to contempt. The Hea-
then theology had a natural tendency to introduce a spirit
of irreligion and profaneness. The same gods, as St. Austin
observes, were laughed at in the theatres, and adored in
the temples. " Non alii dii ridentur in theatris, quam qui
adorantur in templis: nee aliis ludos exhibetis, quam quibus
immolatis (0»"

There are some remarkable passages produced by the
same excellent writer out of a book of Seneca's, not now ex-
tant, De Superstitione, which is also referred to by Ter-
tuUian in his Apologetic, cap. 12. in which that great phi-
losopher and statesman inveighs no less against the civil

{q) Intel. Syst. p. 477.

(r) De Civil. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 8. p. 120.

(«) Ibid. p. 118.

(0 Ibid. p. 117.

Chap. VII. the civil and poetical Pagan Theology. 163

theology of the Romans, or the religion of the state, than
Varro had done against the fabulous or poetical. Speaking
of the images of the gods, he finds fault with their giving
them the forms and habits of men, wild beasts, and fishes,
and a mixture of sexes: an.d says, " they call those gods,
which if they had life and breath, and a man should meet

them unexpectedly, would pass for monsters Numina

vocant, quae, si spiritu accepto subito occurrerent, monstra
haberentur." He exposes the cruel and lascivious rites made
use of in the worship of several of their deities, especially
of the mother of the gods. And yet declares, " that a wise
man will observe all these things, not indeed as acceptable
to the gods, but as commanded by the laws. — Quae omnia
sapiens servabit, tanquam legibus Jussa, non tanquam diis
grata." And speaking of that ignoble rabble of gods, as he
calls them, which the superstition of many ages had heaped
together, he saith, " we will so adore them, as to remem-
ber that this worship is rather matter of custom, than found-
ed in nature or truth. — Omnem istam ignobilem deorum
turbam quam longa superstitio congessit, sic adorabimus,
ut meminerimus cultum istum magis ad morem quam ad
rem pertinere (w)." By this it appears, that in compliance
with popular custom and the laws, he was for adoring the
rabble of gods which he despised; thus leading the people
by his own practice and example to think that he himself
approved that worship.

But that we may have a more thorough conviction of
the deplorable state of religion in the Heathen world, let us
take a view of the absurd and immoral rites made use of in
the worship of their gods, and which were either prescribed
by the laws, or were established customs, countenanced by

(u) Ap. August, ubi supra, lib. vi^ chap. 10. p. 122, 123.

164 Immoral Rites of PaganWorshtp, Part I,

the magistrates, and which had obtained the force of laws,
and may therefore be regarded as belonging to the public re-*
ligion of the Pagans.

I shall not take notice of those rites of their worship
which were merely ridiculous, of which many might be men-
tioned; but only of those which were of a bad and immoral
nature and tendency, and which were either cruel and inhu-
man, or lascivious and impure.

Among those of the former kind was the offering up of
human sacrifices, which for many ages was very general in
the Pagan world. It were easy to heap up many testimo-
nies to this purpose from credible and approved authors.
It obtained among the Phoenicians, Syrians, and Arabians,
as also among the Carthagenians and other people of Africa,
and among the Egyptians till the time of Amasis. The
same thing we are told concerning the Thracians, and the
antient Scythians in general, and several other nations,
many of which are mentioned by Porphyry in the account
he gives of this matter, in his second book De Abstinen-
tia (jv). As to the Gauls, Germans, and Britons, that they
were wont to appease their gods with human sacrifices,
Tacitus and Csesar inform us (if). And Procopius says the
same thing of the antient Heruli (2). And though this cruel

(57) Porphyr. Tlt^iuroy^k. lib. ii. sect. 27. p. 71. et ibid. sect.
34, 35, 36. p. 93, et seq. Edit. Cantabrig. 1655.

(y) Tacit. Annul. 14. cap. 3. et de Moribus German, p. 542.
Edit. Amstel. 1661. Caesar de Bel. Gall. lib. vi. cap. 21.

(2) Procop. De Bel. Goth. lib. vi cap. 1 1. By the accounts an-
tient writers give us, this custom spread through Europe, Asia,
and Africa. The same may be observed concerning America,
which was not known in their time. Acosta, an author of credit,
tells us, that the Americans were possessed with the fury of of-
fering human sacrifices to an incredible degree. All agree, that
this was a common practice among the Mexicans. Gemelli Car-

Chap. VII. Immoral Rites of Pagan Worship, 165

rite was never so common among the Greeks and Romans,
as among some other nations, yet it continued for a long
time to be in use among them upon extraordinary occasions.
Porphyry mentions several of the Greek islands, in which
human sacrifices were offered at certain seasons and solem-
nities; as in Chios, Tenedos, Salamis, Rhodes, and Crete.
Among those who sometimes offered human sacrifices he
also takes notice of the Lacedaemonians and Athenians; and
observes from Phylarchus, that the Grecians were wont to
sacrifice men when they went to war (a), Clemens Alexan-
drinus, in his admonition to the Gentiles, shews, from good
authorities, that the same custom obtained among the Thes-
salians, Messenians, Phocaeans, and Lesbians. And that
Erechtheus, king of Athens, and the famous Roman general
Marius, sacrificed their own daughters. Plutarch, in his
life of Themistocles, informs us, that three very beautiful
Persian captives, richly habited and adorned, were, by the
advice of the prophet Euphrantides, offered as sacrifices to
Bacchus Omestes, or the devourer, as a vow for victory:
and though Themistocles was startled at the inhumanity of
it, the people with one voice invoking Bacchus, and bring-
ing the captives to the altar, compelled him to perform the
sacrifice. The same great historian and philosopher, in his

reri, a late ingenious traveller, in his account of Mexico, insists
largely upon this subject: and what he saith of the number of
human sacrifices that were there offered, especially on some ex-
traordinary occasions, is astonishing. Acosta tells us of numbers
of children that were sacrificed in Peru, at the coronation of the
Incas, and other special occasions. Hist. Ind. lib. v. cap. 19. This
however is contradicted by Garcilasso de la Vega, in his Royal
Commentaries of Peru; who, though he acknowledges thai the
Mexicans and other neighbouring nations offered human sacri-
fices, says, the Incas would not suffer them in their territories,
(a) Porphyr. ubi supra.

166 Ifuman Sacrifices among" the ancient Pagans. Paut I.

life of Marcellus, tells us, that the Romans in the beginning
of a war with the Gauls, in obedience to some oracles con-
tained in the Sibylline books, buried alive a Greek man and
a Greek woman, and likewise a Gaulish man and a Gaulish
woman, in the Ox-market, by way of sacrifice. Livy ac-
quaints us, that they repeated this sacrifice at the beginning
of the second Punick war(<^). And Plutarch adds, that they
continued to offer those sacrifices in his time (c). We are
told by Florus, that when Rome was taken by the Gauls,
those of the Romans, that were advanced in years, and had
been honoured with the greatest dignities, gathered together
into the Forum, and there being devoted by the pontiff,
consecrated themselves to the dii manes, the infernal gods.
" Majores natu, amplissimis usi honoribus, in Forum coie-
runt, ibique devovente pontifice, diis se manibus consecra-
verunt (<^)." Human sacrifices were still offered, as Por-
phyry informs us, till the time of the emperor Adrian, who
ordered them in most places to be abolished. And then, as
Eusebius observes, the Gospel had every where diffused its
salutary light. The best of the philosophers had condemned
it before, but had not been able to extirpate it. And even
after this there were still some instances of it in the Roman
empire, as long as the Pagan religion prevailed. The same
Porphyry, who lived in the reign of the emperor Dioclesian,
mentions it as a thing well known, that in his days, in the
city of Rome itself, a man was wont to be sacrificed at the
feast of Jupiter Latiaris. " *Aaa' ht »x) fvv rtg uyyon xctru, t>j-

(b) Liv. Hist. lib. xxii. cap. 57.

(rf) Luc. Flor. lib. i. cap. 13.
(e) Porphyr. ubi supra.

Chap. VIL Cruel and bloody Rites inthe Pagan^ ^c. 167

Lactantius, who writ a little after Porphyry, says the
same thing was done in his days. " Jupiter etiam nunc san-
guine colitur humano(y)." This then may be justly re-
garded as making a part of the Pagan religion. Even in
those places where it was not ordinarily used, yet on extra-
ordinary occasions it made a principal part of the solemn
sacrifices paid to their deities, and was looked upon as the
most effectual way of appeasing them, and procuring their
favour. Lord Herbert observes, " that their cruel priests
taught them, that victims of less dignity might be sufficient
for inferior deities, but to their highest god the sun, these
as the most valuable sacrifices were to be offered. — Sacrifi-
candi ritus hie fuit, ut homo in solis honorem mactaretur;
licet enim minores victimse aliis offenentur, summo tamen
eorum deo summam convenire victimam docuerunt atrocis-
simi sacerdotes (^)«" But it ought to be mentioned to the
honour of the law of Moses, that at the time when this
kind of sacrifices very generally obtained in all the neigh-
bouring nations, they were expressly forbidden in that law,
and represented as abominable in the sight of God. And
wherever Christianity has been established, those sacrifices
have been abolished.

There were also other rites made use of among the Pa-
gans, which were cruel and shocking to humanity. Baal's
priests were wont to cut and slash themselves with knives
and lances. 1 Kings xviii. 28. The same thing was practis-
ed in the worship of Isis, according to Herodotus, and of
Bellona, as Lampridius informs us; to which also Lucan
refers, Pharsal. lib. i. vers. 56, 57. In the omophagia, one
of the festivals of Bacchus, his priests used to tear and
devour the entrails of goats, raw and reeking, in imitation

(/) Divin. Instit. lib. i, cap. 21. p. 1 13.

(§:) Herbert De Relig, Gentil. cap. 4. p. 31. Edit. 8vo. Amstcl.

168 Cruel Rites icsed in the Pagan Worship, Part L

of their god (Ji), Many authors take notice of the solemni-
ties of Cybele, the mother of the gods, whose priests not
only emasculated themselves, but in their sacred processions
made hideous noises and howlings, cutting themselves till
the blood gushed out as they went along. These frantic and
cruel rites are well exposed by Seneca in a passage quoted
by St. Austin, from his book De Superstitione, mentioned
above (i). Yet the worship of this goddess made a part of
the public religion at Rome. Her statue was brought by-
order of the senate, with great pomp, from Pessinum in
Galatia to Rome, pursuant to the advice of the Sibylline
oracles, as Livy informs us (/^), and the Ludi Megalenses
were instituted to her honour.

Among the cruel rites made use of in the worship of the
Pagan deities may be also reckoned the ^ietf*ccs-ty»nrn^ which
was observed at Sparta, in honour of Diana Orthia, and
was so called from the scourging there used. They whipped
boys with an unrelenting severity upon her altar, whilst the
priestess of Diana stood by to see that it was rigorously
executed. The boys often died under it, and in that case,
when they bore it with a manly fortitude, they were ho-
noured with a public funeral, and were buried with garlands
on their heads, and, as Lucian says, they had statues erect-

(A) Potter's Antiquities of Greece, vol. i. p. 348 et 407. Arno-
bius upbraids the Pagans with this savage rite. " Bacchanalia
prxtermittam immania, quibus nomen oraophagiis Grsecum est,
in quibus, furore mentito, et sequestrata pectoris sanitate, cir-
cumplicatis vos anguibus, atque ut vos plenos dei numine ac
majestate doceatis, caprorum reclamantium viscera cruentatis
oribus dissipatis." Arnob. Advers. Gent. lib. v. p. 169. Edit.
Lugd. Bat. 1651.

(i) De Civ. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 10. p. 123.

(k) Liy. Hist. lib. xxix. cap. 14.

Chap. VII. Impure Rites in the Pagan Worship. 1G9

ed to their honour (/). This custom is said to have had its
rise in consequence of an oracle, which ordered that the
altar of the goddess should be sprinkled with blood. Ac-
cordingly they offered every year in sacrifice a man chosen
for that purpose. This was changed by Lycurgus mto the
whipping of boys at her altar. But when the boys were
whipped to death, it was the most cruel way of sacrificing
them: of which Plutarch, in his life of Lycurgus, declares
he had seen several instances. Dacier, in his notes on Plu-
tarch's life of Themistocles, observes, that in one of the
towns of Arcadia they used to whip the women, as they
did the young men or boys round Diana's altar at Sparta.
And Potter in his Greek Antiquities says, that Bacchus
had an altar in Arcadia, upon which a great many young
damsels were beaten to death with rods. (w).

And as some of the Heathen rites were cruel and inhu-
man, others were no less remarkable for all manner of
licentiousness. In the festivals of Bacchus, which were
celebrated all over Greece, but with a peculiar solemnity at
Athens, the seat of learning and politeness, persons of both
sexes ran about in the night as well as day in ridiculous
postures, invoking the deity with loud cries and yellings,
and putting on an appearance of fury and madness. And
revelling and drunkenness was part of the worship to which
they were obliged in honour of the god. The victors in their
drinking contests on this occasion were rewarded with a
crown of leaves and a vessel of wine (n). It was a saying of
Plato, recorded by Diogenes Laertius, that to drink to ex-
cess was not allowable, except upon the festival of that god

Q) Potter's Greek Antiq. vol. i. p. 344. Lucian Oper. torn. ii.
p. 297. Edit. Amstel.

(m) Potter ubi supra, p. 193.
\n) Ibid. p. 331. 348, 349. 40r.

Vol. I. Y

170 Impure and lascivtoits Rites Part L

who is the giver of wine (o). The licentiousness of these
and some other festivals was so well known, that it was the
advice of wise men to married women to abstain from the
feasts of Bacchus and Ceres, and the mother of the gods.
Hence that saying of Aristippus, mentioned by Sextus Em-
piricus, concerning a chaste woman, " that she will not be
corrupted even at the Bacchanals;" intimating the great
danger women were in of being vitiated at those festi-
vals {p).

This leads me to observe, that many of their rites were
indecent and impure. The Lupercalia, one of the most an-
tient Roman festivals in honour of Pan, were celebrated in
an immodest manner, the priests running about the streets,
naked all but the middle, and striking all they met, espe-
cially the women, with thongs made of the skins of goats
which they had sacrificed {q'). The Ludi Florales were also
a part of the public Roman religion, celebrated by the di-
rection of the Sibylline oracles, in honour of the goddess
Flora, and were appointed by the authority of the state.
The chief part of the solemnity was managed by a company
of shameless strumpets, who ran up and down naked, some-
times dancing in lascivious postures, sometimes fighting,
and acting the mimics: which was not discountenanced, but
rather encouraged by the gravest magistrates, (r). The rites
of the goddess Cybele were no less infamous for lewdness
than for cruelty. And the Kotyttia or Kotytis, a nocturnal
festival, in honour of Kotys or Kotytis, the goddess of wan-
tonness, was observed by the Athenians, Corinthians, Chians,
Thracians, and others, and celebrated with rites suitable to

(o) Diog. Laert. lib. iii. segm. 39.

(/O Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib. iii. cap. 24.

(7) See Kennct's Roman Antiquities, p. 64, 65.

(r) Ibid. p. 288, 389.

Chap. VII. in the Worship of the Pagan Deities, 171

such a goddess, who was thought to be delighted with no-
thing so much as lewdness and debauchery: and the priests
practised all sorts of effeminacy and meretricious arts (*).
The Aphrodisia, or festivals in honour of Venus, were
observed with lascivious ceremonies in divers parts of
Greece. At Corinth these festivals were celebrated by har-
lots, as we learn from Athenaeus; who also informs us, that
they who supplicated the goddess, were wont to promise to
devote some women to her, in order to the obtaining their
requests (/). Strabo, a grave and judicious writer, relates,
that there was a temple of Venus at Corinth so rich, that
it maintained above a thousand harlots, sacred to her ser-
vice, <«gdSKAfa"5 Irxi^cii, which were consecrated both by men
and women to that goddess (u). The same author, speaking
of Comana, a city of Cappadocia, saith, that there were
many women there, who prostituted their bodies for hire,
most of them sacred, 9rAe«V«# *eg«t/, and that there as well as
at Corinth, because of the multitude of harlots consecrated
to Venus, there was a great resort of people to sojourn and
keep festivals in that place (x). The truth is, these impure
customs were spread far and wide. Herodotus acquaints us,
that there was a law among the Babylonians, that every
ivoman who was a native of that country should once in her
life go to the temple of Venus, to prostitute herself to a
stranger; that there were many women sitting at the temple
for that purpose; and that the money which was given them,
and which it was not lawful for them to refuse, was dedi-
cated to sacred uses (y). This custom, as a learned and

(«) Potter's Greek Antiq. ubi supra, p. 375, 576.
(r) Ibid. p. 337. Athen. Deipnosoph. lib. xiii. cap. 6.
(u) Strabo, lib. viii. p 581. Edit. Amstel. 1707,
(or) Ibid. lib. xii. p. 837.
ly) Herod, lib. i, n. 199. Edit. Francof. 1608.

172 hnpure and lascivious Rites Part I.

ingenious author has observed, is not to be charged upon
any peculiar wantonness of the women of that country. It
was done as an act of religion, and a duty required of them
towards that goddess; which, when they had once discharg-
ed, nothing, as Herodotus farther informs us, could prevail
with them to reiterate it (z). Strabo also mentions this law
and custom, to which, he says, they were directed by a cer-
tain oracle, and that the women which came to the temple
for that purpose, were wont to come with great pomp, and
attended with much company (a). The same much-esteemed
author assures us concerning the Armenians, that they
principally worshipped the goddess Anaitis, and that the
most illustrious persons of the nation dedicated their virgin
daughters to her, which after having been for a long time
prostituted in her service, were given in marriage, none dis-
daining to marry them, but rather thinking it an honour to
do so. And he there also mentions Herodotus as saying the
same thing of the Lydian women (J)), Other instances of
the like kind might be mentioned: as what Lucian tells us
of a great temple of Venus at Byblus in Syria, at which the
women prostituted themselves for hire on a certain day to
strangers only, and that the gain they got by it was a sa-
crifice to Venus (c). See also what Valerius Maximus re-
ports to the same purpose concerning the temple of Venus
at Sicca in Africa (<a^). The testimonies which have been
produced are not to be suspected, as they are taken from
celebrated Heathen writers: from whom also it appears,
that the niost abominable impurities and crimes against

(z) De rOrigin des Loix, &c. tom. iii. p. 331, et seq.

{b) Ibid lib. xi.p. 805.

(c?) Val. Max. lib. ii. cap. vi. n. 15.

Chap. VII. in the Worship of the Pagan Deities. 17Q

nature, made, in many places, a part of their religion. Of
this kind is what Strabo relates concerning the filthiness
committed with the sacred goats at Mendes in Egypt, where
Pan was worshipped: an instance of which is mentioned by-
Herodotus, who says, it was done publickly and openly
when he was in Egypt (^). Nor have we any reason to
doubt of the truth of what Julius Firmicus relates concern-
ing the sodomy practised in his time in some of their tem-
ples, particularly those of Juno; which, he says, they were
so far from being ashamed of, that they made it the subject
of their glorying (/). The learned Dr. Spenser has shewn,
that among the antient Pagan idolaters there were males as
well as females consecrated to their deities, who prostituted
themselves in their temples on the sacred festivals, and
were thought by doing so to yield them acceptable service;
and that they were wont to dedicate the gains of their pros-
titution to their gods and goddesses (^).

Eusebius observes, that the Heathens came at length to
that height of wickednes^s and impurity, that, through an
excess of lustful intemperance, they worshipped with di-
vine honour those parts of the body which are the instru-
ments of exciting and gratifying the most impure pas-
sions Qi). The figures of them were carried about in some
of their sacred processions, to which hymns were sung, and
religious veneration paid. This was done among the Egyp-

(e) Herod, lib. ii. n. 46. Strabo, lib. xvii. p. 1154.

(/) " Videre est in ipsis templis, cum publico gemitu mi-
seranda ludibria, viros muliebria pati, et banc impuri et impu-
dici corporis labem gloriosa ostentatione detegere. Publicant
facinora sua, et contaminati corporis vidum cum maxima de-
lectadonis macula confitentur." De Errore profan. Religion, p.
10, 11. Oxen. 1678.

{g) Spenser De Leg. Hebr. lib. ii. cap. 22. et 23,

{h) Praepar. Evangel, lib. ii. cap. 6. p. 74.

174 Impure rites in the Worship Part I,

tians in the Sacra of Isis and Osiris, and as Diodorus af-
firms, in the solemnities of other nations, particularly among
the Greeks. For a proof of this I would refer to the ac-
count given by Potter, in his Grecian Antiquities, of the
Aphrodisia or festival of Venus celebrated at Cyprus, of
the Dionysia or festival of Bacchus at Athens, and ot the
Thesmophoria, or festival in honour of Ceres at Syra-
cuse (i).

It has given me some uneasiness to go through a detail,
which can scarce be mentioned without shocking the deli-
cacy of a modest reader. But it may be of use to let us
see what extravagancies and abominations men are capable
of, when they have lost and perverted the true knowledge
of God, and of his worship. Nothing can give us a
more affecting view of the corrupt state of religion in the

(?) Potter's Antiquities, vol. i. p. 337. 347, 348. 369. Con-
cerning the obscenities in their sacred rites and ceremonies,
Arnobius, who had been a learned Pagan, treats largely. Advers.
Gent. lib. v. p. 168, 169, et seq. Edit, varior. Lugd. Bat. 1651.
To which may be added what Clem. Alex, relates concerning
the sacred chest or coffer of Bacchus, and its impure contents,
which were proposed to veneration. Clem. Alex. Proterpt. p.
16. Edit. Potter, See also what St. Austin says from Varro,
« De turpitudine sacrorum quae Libero celebrantur. In Italiae
compitis quaedam dicit [Varro] sacra Liberi celebrata cum
tanta licentia turpitudinis, ut in ejus honorem, pudenda virilia
colerentur. Nam hoc turpe membrum, per Liberi dies festos
cum honore magno plostellis impositum, prius rure in com-
pitis, et usque in urbem postea vectabatur. In oppido autem
Lavinio uni Libero totus mensis tribuebatur, cujus diebus
omnes verbis flagitiosissimis uterentur, donee illud membrum
per forum transveclum esset, aique in loco suo quiesceret. Cui
membro inhonesto matrem familias honestissimam palam coro-
nam necesse erat imponere." Apud Augustin. De Civ. Dei,
)ib. vii. cap. 21. p. 136. Edit. Bened*

Chap. VII. of the Pa^an Deities. 175

Heathen world, even among the most civilized nations*
The Pagan idolatry was not a mere speculative absurdity,
but had in many instances a very pernicious influence on
the morals of the people, encouraging all manner of de-
bauchery and licentiousness. There are several passages
in the Old Testament in which it is intimated, that im-
purity was an usual attendant of the Heathen idolatry.
And so it also was when the Gospel was first published to
the world. It is a just account which St. Peter gives of
the Gentiles in his time, that they " walked in lascivi-
ousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and
abominable idolatries:" and they thought it " strange, that
the Christians did not run with them into the same excess
of riot, speaking evil of them." 1 Pet. iv. 3, 4. And St.
Paul, having made a lively representation of the inexcusa-
ble idolatry into which the Gentile world was generally
fallen, observes, that as a just judgment upon them, " God
gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their
own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between them-
selves." Rom. i. 24. And elsewhere he saith of them, that
" being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance
that was in them, because of the blindness of their hearts,
they gave themselves over unto lasciviousness, to commit
all uncleanness with greediness." Eph, iv. 18, 19. This fol-
lowed from their very religion, and the notions they gene-
rally entertained of the gods they worshipped. The cele-
brated Mr. De Voltaire is pleased to tell us, that " the re-
ligion of the Pagans consisted in nothing but morality and
festivals; morality, which is common to men of all ages and
places; and festivals, and which were no more than times
of rejoicing, and could not be of prejudice to mankind (i).'^

(k) *' La religion des Payens ne consistoit que dans la morale,
et dans les fetes: la morale) qui est commune aux hommes de

2 76 The Pagan Idolatry tended to promote Part I.

That the Heathen morality was very defective will appear
•when I come more particularly to consider it. Nor was
morality properly a part of their religion, as taught by the
priests. It is a just observation of Mr. Locke, that "the
people, under puin o.' displeasing the gods, were to fre-
quent the temples: every one went to their sacrifices and
services: but the priests made it not their business to teach
them virtue ( /)." As to the Pagan festivals, it sufficiently
appears from the account which hath been given of them,
that they were far from being so innocent as Mr. De Vol-
taire represents them. Both the deities they adored, and
the rites of their \vorship, had a tendency in many instances
to corrupt their morals.

Another ingenious author, who has shewn a very strong
prejudice in favour of the Pagan religion and worship, has
thought fit to observe, that " if we compare the abomi-
nations committed at the feasts of Venus and Bacchus,
with the debaucheries which happen upon the great festi-
vals of the Christian church, we shall find that men of all
religions are much the same. But must we look upon these
abuses as principles of the primitive Pagan or Christian re-
ligion (w)?" But there is this remarkable difference be-
tween them: that what he calls the abuses of the Heathen
festivals, naturally arose from the notions they formed of
their deities, and made a necessary part of the worship
paid to them. The whores consecrated to Venus, and the
impure rites practised at her festivals, and the drunken-

tous les terns et de tous les lieux; et les fetes, qui n'etoient que
de rejouissances, et ne pourvoient troubler le genre humain."
Hist, du Siecle de Louis XIV.

(I) Locke's Reason, of Christ, in his Works, vol. ii. p. 532. 3d
Edit.

(m) Chevalier Ramsay's Principles of Natural and Revealed
Religion, vol. ii. p. 401, 402.

CkAP. VII. Debauchery and Licentiousness* XT7

nesses and other vicious excesses at the feasts of Bacchus,
were supposed to be agreeable to the temper and charac-
ter of those deities, and to be acceptable and honourable to
them. And as such were countenanced, and in many in-
stances prescribed both by their oracles and by their laws.
And indeed what other rites could be imagined becoming
such a lascivious goddess as Venus, and such a drunken,
deity as Bacchus was represented to be, or suited to the
flagitious actions ascribed to others of their gods, and even
to Jupiter the chief of them? But none can pretend, that
the revellings and debaucheries committed at some of the
Christian festivals, make a part of the worship prescribed
or countenanced by the Christian religion. ^.

Most of the Heathen festivals and solemnities, and the
rites, games, and processions celebrated in honour of their
deities, were, as hath been already hinted, founded on
the poetical or fabulous theology, and on the traditions of
the mythologists. And these rites and solemnities made a
part of the public religion: they were authorised by the
laws, and celebrated, as Potter observes, at a vast charge
(n). The Athenians were particularly remarkable for this;
who, as they exceeded other people in the number of the
gods they adored, so they had, according to Xenophon in
his account of the Athenian republic, twice as many festi-
vals as any other cities.

It is not to be doubted, that some of the best and
wisest among the Pagans disapproved these scandalous ex-
cesses. But as they naturally sprung up out of their reli-
j^ion, no effectual remedy could be applied, whilst the pub-
lic idolatry and worship of the popular deities continued
in force. And this even the philosophers confirmed, by
urging it upon every man as his duty to conform to the

(n) Potter's Greek Antiq. vol. i. p. 325. Edit, Ut.
Vol. I. Z

178 The Mag-istrates and Politicians Part I.

religion, and to worship the gods of his country. As to the
magistrates and great men of the state, it does not appear
that they had any desire or intention, that the people
should have such just notions of religion, as might be a
proper preservative to them against those idolatrous super-
stitions. Nor did they give themselves any concern about
them, except in cases were they thought the interest of the
public required them to interpose; of which we have a fa-
mous instance in the horrid and shocking enormities oc-
casioned by the introducing the Bacchanalia into Italy;
which were carried so far, and produced such unlawful
combinations, as threatened the subversion of the state.
Great numbers were therefore put to death, by order of
the senate, for being initiated in those mysteries: of which
Livv gives a particular account in the 39th book of his
History.

The Roman pontiff Scsevola before mentioned, whom
Cicero in his first book De Oratore calls, " jurisperitorum
eloquentissimus, et eloquentium jurisperitissimus," though
he finds great fault with the poetical theology concerning
the gods, yet was in reality far from desiring that the peo-
ple should be rightly instructed in the true nature of re-
ligion. For among the things which it was not proper or
profitable for the people to know he reckons the following,
viz. that " Hercules and -£sculapius, Castor and Pollux
are not gods: for it is delivered by the learned, that they
were men, and deceased according to the common lot of
humanity: that the cities have not the true images or
representations of those that are gods: and that a truit
God has neither sex nor age, nor distinct bodily mem-
bers.—Non esse deos Herculem, .^sculapium, Castorem,
PoUucem: traditur enim a doctis quod homines fuerint, et
humana conditione defecerint: eorum qui sint dii non habere

Chap. Vir. encouraged the popular Idolatry, 17§

civitates vera simulacra: quod verus Deus nee sexum
habeat nee ajtatem, nee definita corporis membra (o)."

Varro was very sensible, that their religion and worship
needed to be reformed. He sticks not to declare, that, if
he had been to new model the city, he would have endea-
voured to make the names and worship of their gods more
conformable to truth and nature: but that, as it had been
of a long standing among the people, he thought he ought
to retain the names and history of the gods as received
from the antients, and to treat of them in such a man-
ner, as should rather engage the common people to wor-
ship them with greater veneration, than expose them to
contempt (/?). And accordingly he seems to value himself
upon it, as having well merited of his fellow-citizens, in
that he not only gave an account of the gods whom the
Romans ought to worship, but what power and office be-
longed to each of them, that the people might not be at
a loss whom to address on any particular occasion. " Ita
esse utilem cognitionem deorum, si sciatur quam quisque
deus vim et facultatem ac potestatem cujusque rei habeat:
ex eo enim poterimus scire quern cujusque rei causa deum
advocare atque invocare debeamus (^)." The same great
man says, " It is useful to the commonwealth, that men of
courage and fortitude should think that they were begotten
of the gods, although it be false; that so looking upon
themselves to be of divine extraction, they may with the
greater boldness and confidence attempt and accomplish the
greatest things. — Utile esse civitatibus dicit, ut se viri
fortes, etiamsi falsum sit, diis genitos esse credant ut eo

(o) Apud Augustin. De Civit. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 27. p. 84.
(p) Apud Augustin. ubi supra, cap. 31. p. 87.
{q) Ibid. cap. 22. p. 81.

18.0 The Magistrates and Politicians Part I,

modo humanus animus velut divinse stirpis fiduciam gerens,
res magnas aggrediendas praesumat audacius, et agat vehe-
mentius (r)." And indeed this is agreeable to the rule he
lays down, when speaking of religion and the sacred rites,
that many things are true which it is of no advantage to
the people to know, and that even though they be false it is
expedient that the people should think otherwise. " Multa
esse vera quae non modo vulgo scire not sit utile, sed etiam
tametsi falsa sunt, aliter existimare populum expediat (5)."
It can scarce be doubted, but that some of the great and
learned men among them were sensible of the falsehood
and absurdity of the public and popular religion. This
seems particularly to have been the case of that eminent
philosopher and statesman Cicero, Varro's friend and inti-
mate. He makes very free with the Pagan gods, and their
worship, in several parts of his works. But though he
thought these things might be treated of in the philosophical
disputations, he was not for having them brought before
the people, lest it should tend to the subversion of the pub-
lic religion. " Non esse ilia vulgo disputanda, ne susceptas
publice religiones disputatio talis extinguat." This passage
is cited by Lactantius (^), and was taken, as Davies thinks,
from Cicero's third book De Nat. Deorum, though not
now to be found there, as several parts of that book
are lost.

Such were the maxims by which the wisest and greatest
men of the Pagan world governed themselves, which shews
how little was to be expected from them for leading the

(r) Apud Augustin. De Civit. Dei, lib. iii. p. 49.
(«) Apud Augustin. ubi supra, lib. iv. cap. 3 1 . p. 87.
(0 Divin. Instit. lib. ii. cap. 3. p. 148. Edit. Lugd. Bat
1660.

Chap. VII. encouraged Idolatry. ISl

people into the right knowledge and practice of religion.
Indeed their legislators and great men were principally
concerned in countenancing and establishing the public
idolatry and polytheism, and would not suffer any infringe-
ment of the legal appointed rites and worship. They con-
sidered religion in a political view, and were not for curing
or removing the popular superstition, but rather for making
vise of it in such a manner as might best answer the ends
of the civil power.

182

CHAPTER VIII.

The Pagan mysteries have been highly extolled, as an expedient provided bj
the civil authority, both for leading the people to the practice of virtue, and
for convincing them of the vanity of the common idolatry and polytheism. The
tendency of the mysteries to punfy the soul, and raise men to the perfection
of virtue, examined. At best they were only designed to promote the practice
of those virtues -which were most useful to society, and to deter men from such
■vices as were most pernicious to it. In process of time they became greatly
corrupted, and had a bad effect on the morals of the people. The pretence,
that the mysteries were intended to detect the error of the vulgar polytheism,
and to bring men to the acknowledgment and adoration of the one true God,
distinctly considered: and thp proofs bronght for it shewn to be insufficient.

I KNOW of nothing which can be alleged, as designed
and appointed by the state, for rectifying the popular no-
tions of religion, except what was done this way in the
celebration of the sacred mysteries. And this indeed was
very considerable, and must have had a great effect, if the
account given of the nature and design of those mysteries
by the very learned author of the Divine Legation of
Moses, the present Bishop of Gloucester, may be de-
pended upon. The design of them was, as he represents
it, both to engage men to a holy and virtuous practice, and
to give them just notions of religion, and detect the error
of the vulgar polytheism. He says, that in the mysteries,
" those that were initated were obliged by solemn engage-
ments to commence a new life of the strictest purity and
virtue; nor was a less degree of purity required of the ini-
tiated for their future conduct (a)." That " the mysteries
openly proclaimed it, as their chief business to restore the
soul to its original purity (^)." And that " they professed

(a) Div. Leg. of Moses, book ii. sect, iv. p. 145. 4th Edit.
lb) Ibid. p. 142.

Chap. VIII. Concerning tfie Pagan Mysteries, 183

to exact nothing difficult of the initiated which they would
not assist him to perform (c)." And having represented it
as an institution, which taught the necessity of a strict and
holy life;" he makes this an argument, that " it could not
come out of the sacerdotal warehouse; but must have been
the invention of legislators, to whose schemes virtue was
necessary (d?)." And whereas " the vicious examples of
their gods was one insuperable obstacle to a life of purity
and holiness, it was necessary to remedy this evil, which
they did by striking at the root of it. So that such of the
initiated as were judged capable were made acquainted
with the whole delusion. The mystagogue taught them,
that Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the whole rabble
of licentious deities, were only dead mortals, subject in
life to the same passions and vices with themselves; but
having been on other accounts benefactors to mankind,
grateful posterity had deified them, and with their virtues
had indiscreetly canonized their vices. The fabulous gods
being thus routed, the Supreme Cause of all things natur-
ally took their place. Him they were taught to consider as
the Creator of the universe, who pervaded all things by
his virtue, and governed all things by his providence (^)."
He positively asserts, that " the ^^roppV**) or secret doc-
trines of the mysteries, overthrew the vulgar polytheism,
or worship of dead men (y)." And again, that the " clear
evidence of antiquity expressly informs us of these two
particulars, that the errors of polytheism were detected,
and the doctrine of the unity taught and explained in the
mysteries (^)." And having observed, that it was the de-

(d) Ibid. p. 208, 209.

(e) Ibid. p. 154, 155.
(/) Ibid.

(g) Ibid. p. 157.

^84 Concerning the Pagan Mysteries, Part L

sign of the mysteries to make men as virtuous as they could,
he says, that " this they provided for by discovering, to
such as were capable of the secret, the whole delusion of
polytheism;" and adds, that " this being supposed the shak-
ing foundations, was to be done with all possible circum-
spection, and under the most tremendous seal of secresy.
For they taught, the gods themselves punished the reveal-
crs of the secret; and not them only, but the hearers of it
too. Nor did they altogether trust to that neither — the state
decreed capital punishments against the betrayers of the
mysteries, and inflicted them with merciless severity (A)."
And he concludes his account of the mysteries with ob-
serving, that " there were three things about which the
mysteries were principally concerned, 1. The rise and esta-
blishment of civil society. 2. The doctrine of a future state
of rewards and punishments. 3. The error of polytheism,
and the principle of the unity (i)."

Such is the idea our learned and ingenious author gives
of the nature and design of the Pagan mysteries. These, he
tells us, were celebrated in almost all nations. He mentions
Egypt, Persia, Thrace, Greece, particularly Argos, Bceotia,
Athens, Crete, Cyprus, Samothrace, Amphyssa, Lemnos;
likewise Britain and India. He saith, the nature of all these
mysteries was the same, that they were all derived from the
same original, and constituted for the same ends (i). But
that the Eleusinian were the most renowned; and in process
of time eclipsed, and as it were swallowed up, the rest.
They spread through the Roman empire, and beyond the
limits of it. Tully says, that the nations in the utmost bor-
ders of the earth were initiated into them. " Initiantur

(/i)Div. Leg. p. 180.

(0 Ibid. p. 286.

a) Ibid. p. 138. 160.

Chap. VIII. Concerning the Pagan Mysteries, 185

gentes orarum ultima." And Apuleius, that crowds were
initiated, men and women, persons of all ages, conditions^
and dignities (/). So that if these mysteries were both so ex-
cellently designed and successfully employed as he says they
were, almost all nations throughout the world, by the con-
trivance of the legislators and civil magistrates, were pro-
vided with a noble expedient for raising them to the height
of purity and virtue, and convincing them of the error of
idolatry and polytheism.

It were to be wished that so beautiful a scheme were
founded on sufficient proofs. For it must be acknowledged^
that the account which is here given of the mysteries is
highly ingenious and entertaining, and adorned with a va-
riety of learning. It gives me uneasiness to be obliged to
differ from an author eminent for his abilities and genius^
as well as for his extensive learning, and the station he
bears. But since he represents the mysteries as the most
sacred part of the Pagan religion (m)^ and as belonging to
the civil theology of the Pagans, which we are now con-
sidering, the subject I am upon, and the regard I owe to
what appears to me upon the most impartial enquiry to be
the truth, obliges me to give reasons why I cannot think
this account of the Pagan mysteries to be a just one.

I need not enter upon a very particular examination of
the tendency the mysteries had to engage men to the
practice of the strictest purity and virtue. A few obser-
vations upon it may suffice. I readily acknowledge that
the conductors of the mysteries made high pretensions this
way. In order to procure a greater veneration for them,
the hierophant, or person who presided in those mysteries,
was obliged to devote himself wholly to the divine service,

(0 Div. Leg. p. 140. 146.

\m) Ibid. p. 136,

Vol. L 2 a

1S6 The moral Tendency of the Part I,

and to live a chaste and single life. To which purpose it
was usual for him to anoint himself with the juice of
hemlock, which, by its extreme coldness, is said to ex-
tinguish in a great measure the natural heat (n). With
the same view it was that persons known to be guilty of
any atrocious crime were forbidden to be present at the
mysteries. These pretences were carried to a still greater
height after Christianity made its appearance, and taught
so pure and sublime a morality. The most learned and
zealous advocates for Paganism, as Apuleius, lamblicus,
Hierocles, Proclus, and others, cried up the mysteries as
the most effectual means for purifying the soul, and raising
it to communion with the gods (o). For this purpose
many of the latter Platonists and Pythagoreans got them-
selves initiated into the several mysteries of the gods in
different nations, and applied themselves to what they
called Theurgy; though, as St. Austin observes, Porphyry
owned, that he had not after all his researches met with
any satisfactory way of purging the soul (/>). But I can-
not think that the legislators, in instituting the mysteries,
concerned themselves much about restoring the soul to its
original purity, in the Pythagorean or Platonic sense?

{n) Potter's Greek Antiq. vol. i. p. 183. 356. First edition.

(o) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 144. The same learned author ob-
serves, that " if we may believe a certain antient, who appears
to be well versed in these matters, the mysteries gained their
end, by clearing up all doubts concerning the righteous govern-
ment of the gods." He refers to Sopater in Divis. Quaest. See
Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 210. I must confess, such passages as these,
instead of raising in mc an higher opinion of the mysteries,
make me very much suspect the truth of the extravagant enco-
miums bestowed upon them.

(/i) Apud August, de Civ. Dei, lib. x. cap. 32. p. 204.

Chap. VIII. Pagan Mysteries considered, 187

what they had in view by our learned author's own ac-
knowledgment was, to secure and promote the cause of
virtue, as far as was necessary for the ends of civil society.
As to any thing farther than this they were not solicit-
ous. The mysteries seem to have been originally de-
signed to tame and civilize the rude and barbarous peo-
ple, to form and polish iheir manners, and by shews and
representations, which were fitted to strike the imagina-
tion, to bring them to a greater awe and veneration for
the laws and religion of their country; which among the
Pagans was always regarded as a necessary ingredient in a
virtuous character. Diodorus informs us, that in the Si-
cilian feasts of Ceres, which lasted ten days, was repre-
sented the antient manner of living before men had learned
the use and culture of bread-corn {q). This seems to
have been designed to make men sensible of the value of
a civilized life. It may be gathered from what is said by
several of the ancients, that the principal subject of the
Eleusinian mysteries was the life of Ceres, her wander-
ings after her daughter, and her legislation in Sicily and
Africa, where she taught the inhabitants agriculture, and
gave them laws, and thereby reclaimed them from their
rude and uncultivated manners. It is not improbable there-
fore, that occasion was taken from thence to represent in
the mysteries the great benefit of laws, and the happy con-
sequences of being brought from the wretchedness of a sa-
vage life, to humanity, civility, good manners, and polite-
ness (r). And this is what Cicero seems to have particularly

(y) Died. p. 200. Edit. Steph. as cited Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 240,
Second edition.

(r) Callimachus, in his hymn to Ceres, vers. 10. celebrates
her as having given laws to cities, and taught m6n to cut down
the ears of corn. Agreeable to this is what Arnobius tells us, that

188 The moral Tendency of the Part I.

in view in that noted passage on which our author lays a
great stress. " Nam mihi cum multa divinaque videntur
Athenae peperisse, atque in vita hominum attulisse, turn
nihil melius istis mysteriis, quibus ex agresti immanique
vita, exculti ad humanitatem et mitigati sumus: neque so-
lum cum Isetitia vivendi rationem accepimus; sed etiam
cum spe meliore moriendi." De Legibus, lib. ii, cap. 14.
Here he highly praises the mysteries, for that by them we
were reclaimed from a rude and savage life, and cultivated
and softened into humanity: and that they are rightly called
initia, the beginnings, because by them we have known, or
became acquainted with the beginnings or first principles of
life, [i. e. of a humane and civilized life: for of this he is
evidently speaking] and have been taught not only how to
live pleasantly, but to die with a better hope. This re-
lates to what was so carefully inculcated in the myste-
ries, that " those who were initiated not only lived in a
state of greater happiness and security than other men,
being under the immediate care and protection of the god-
desses, but that after death they enjoyed far greater degrees
of felicity than others, and were honoured with the first
places in the Elysian abodes: whereas others were forced
to lie and wallow in perpetual dirt, stink, andnastiness («)."

the history of Ceres, and her teaching the people the use of
corn, was the principal subject of the Eleusinian mysteries. Ad-
Ters. Gent. lib. v. p. 185 Edit. V^ar. Lugd Bat. St. Austin gives
the same account from Varro, De Civ Dei, lib. vii. cap. 20. p.
136. And Claudian, in the beginning of his poem De Raptu
Proserpinae, where he professes lo open the secrets of the mys-
teries, plainly supposes the design of them to be, to represent
Proserpine's being carried off by Pluto, Ceres*s wandering after
her daughter, her giving laws to the people where she went, and
teaching them the use of com instead of acorns.

[B) Potter's Antiq. vol. i. p. 355. First edit. This gave occasion

Chap. VIII. Pagan Mysteries considered* 189

The true meaning of that passage in Cicero, which has
been now mentioned, farther appears by comparing it with
a parallel passage at the end of his fifth book against Ver-
res, cap. 72. " Teque Ceres et Libera, quarum sacra, sicut
opiniones hominum et religiones ferunt, longe maximis at-
que occultissimis cseremoniis continentur, a quibus initia
vitse atque victus, legum, morum, mansuetudinis, humani-
tatis exempla, hominibus ac civitatibus data ac dispertita
esse dicuntur: quorum sacra populus Romanus a Graecia
accepta et asrita, tanta religione et publice et privatim tue-
tur." Here, after having observed, that the sacra or holy-
rites of Ceres and Libera were contained in the most
august and hidden ceremonies, he saith, that from thence
the beginnings of life and of a proper diet, the examples of
laws, manners, mildness, humanity, are said to have been
given and imparted to men and cities. I shall here insert a
note of the learned Adrian Turnebus relating to this mat-
ter. " Initia vocantur ab initiis vit3e, inventis a Cerere legi-
bus, in quarum rerum memoriam fiebant, cum antea ferino
ritu homines sibi vitam propagabant. — That the mysteries
were called initia, the beginnings, because they were insti-
tuted in memory of Ceres's having given men laws, and
taught them the use of corn, whereby they began properly

to that sneer of Diogenes the cynic, when the Athenians urged
him to be initiated, because those that were initiated had higher
places in Hades than other men; he answered, that it was a ri-
diculous thing to suppose, that Epaminondas and Agesilaus
should lie in dirt and filthiness, whilst common men of no worth
should be placed in the islands of the blessed. Diog. Laeri. lib.
vi. segm. 30. Or, as Plutarch tells it, " Shall Pataecion the thief
be in a better place after death than Epanjinondas, because h©
was initiated?"

190 Bad effect of the Pagan Mysteries Part I,

to live the life of men, whereas before they lived after the
manner of wild beasts. (/).

In the representations made in the mysteries of future
rewards and punishments, matters were so contrived, that
the virtues rewarded and vices punished were such as more
immediately affectt- d society; as our learned author has ob-
served. And it is not improbable that these representations
and shows, where a due care was taken to guard jhem
against the abuses to which they were liable, might produce
some good effects for the advantage of society, which is
what the legislators and civil magistrates had principally in
view. And yet some eminent Pagans seem not to have en-
tertained very advantageous thoughts of the mysteries with
regard to their moral tendency. If Socrates had looked upon
them as having a friendly influence on religion and virtue,
he who had its interests so much at heart, would not have
declined being initiated; especially since he knew that by
this he exposed himself to the calumnies of his enemies,
and incurred the popular suspicion of being an irreligious
and prophane person. It is true, that Socrates is introduced
by Plato in his Phsedo as giving a favourable interpretation
of the design and intention of those mysteries: and indeed
the extraordinary veneration they were had in among the
people at Athens, as well as their being strongly supported
by the civil magistrates and by the laws, would have made
it very unsafe for him to have said the least thing to their
disparagement. But his neglecting to be initiated is a much
stronger proof that he had not a very good opinion of
them, than any thing which can be produced to the con-
trary (w).

(;) Turneb. Commentar. in Cicer. de Leg. lib. ii. s. 9. p. 338.
Edit. Davies.
(w) Socrates, in Plato's Phsedo, says, concerning those wh#

Chap. VIII. on the Morals of the People. 191

Whatever we suppose to have been the original intention
of those mysteries, and allowing all that can be justly said
in favour of them, there is, I think, great reason to appre-
hend that upon the whole they proved rather detrimental
than advantageous to the cause of virtue. Our learned
author himself acknowledges, "that in Greece itself the
mysteries became abominably abused: a proof of which we
have in the conduct of their comic writers, who frequently
lay the scene of their subject, such as the rape of a young
girl, and the like, at the celebration of the mysteries; as he
shews from Fabricius." And he observes, " that in Cicero's
time the terms mysteries and abomination were almost
synonymous .(^)." It is true, that the best institutions may
be corrupted; but the fault seems here to have been owing
to a fundamental defect in the original constitution of them.
" We can assign no surer cause," saith this eminent writer,
" of the horrid abuses and corruptions of the mysteries,
than the season in which they were represented, and the
profound silence in which they were buried. Night gave

instituted and appointed the mysteries, that they were no mean
or contemptible persons, » (puvXoi n'veg and that they taught, that
** whosoever went to Hades without being expiated or initiated
would lie in the dirt or fiUhiness, but that those who went thither
purged and initiated would dwell with the gods.'* Plat. Oper. p.
380. F. Edit. Lugd. 1590. The purification here referred to
seems to have been the ritual purification prescribed in the
mysteries: concerning which see Potter's Antiq. vol. i. p. 355.
But Socrates, who was for taking advantage of this, intimates,
that it had probably a hidden meaning, and was designed to sig-
nify, that it was necessary that the soul should be purified by vir-
tue. He does not say, that this was declared at the mysteries, but
he supposes it, atvtrleT6ott, to be obscurely signified by those cere-
monies of purgation.

{x) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 195.

192 The Pagan mysteries not designed to Part L

opportunity to wicked men to attempt evil actions, and the
secrecy encouragement to repeat them (j/)." He farther
observes, that " the mysteries were sometimes" [he might
have said they were frequently] " under the patronage of
those deities, who were supposed to inspire and preside
over sensual passions; such as Bacchus, Venus, and Cupid;
for these had all their mysteries: and where was the won-
der, if the initiated should be sometimes inclined to give a
loose to those vices, in which the patron god was supposed
to delight? And in this case, the hidden doctrine came too
late to put a stop to the disorder (2)." And he there also
mentions what he calls " that very flagitious part of the
mysterious rites when at worst, the carrying the KTEIS and
OAAAOS in procession (<2)." He says indeed, that ••' it was
introduced but under pretence of their being emblems of
the mystical regeneration, and new life, into which the ini-
tiated had engaged themselves to enter." But it is no way
probable, that this was the original ground of introducing
it, but a pretence invented for it after it was introduced; for
the same reason that they endeavoured to find out allegori-
cal meanings and physical explications for some other parts
of the mysteries. And a most absurd pretence it was; as if
such obscene rites which shock common modesty were fit

(t/) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 190, 191.

(2) Ibid. p. 192.

(a) He seems here to intimate, as if this part of the rites was
not brought in till the latest and most corrupt times of the mys-
teries. But there is no proof of this. On the contrary, it seems to
have been one of the most antient rites used in the mysteries of
Isis, from which the Eleusinian mysteries were derived. And
lamblicus himself, who was a very learned hierophant, and who
undoubtedly was strongly inclined to give the most advantage-
ous account of the mysteries, represents it to have been so from
the most antient times.

Chap. VIII. detect the Error of Polytheism. 193

emblems of inward purity, and of an entrance on a life of
the strictest virtue. Arnobius justly exposes the absurdity
of couching holy mysteries under obscene representations,
on pretence that they had a profound and sacred mean-
ing (b). And he applies this particularly to the Eleusinian
mysteries (c). I cannot therefore but think, that whatever
was the original intention of the mysteries, they were fre-
quently so conducted as to have a most pernicious influence
in countenancing and heightening that impurity and disso-
luteness of manners, which became so general in the Pagan
world. And to them probably St. Paul refers when he saith,-
" It is a shame even to speak of those things which were
done l)y them in secret." Eph. v. 12. And our learned au-
thor himself thinks, this great apostle had the mysteries
particularly in view, in what he saith concerning the wise
men of the Gentiles, Rom. i. 20, et.seq. That " God in
punishment for their turning' his truth into a lie, suffered
their mysteries which they erected for a school of virtue,
to degenerate into an odious sink of vice and immorality;
giving them up unto all undeanness and vile affections (^)."
But not to insist longer upon this, what the subject we
are upon leads us principally to consider is, whether and
how far the mysteries were designed to detect the error of
polytheism, and to instruct the initiated in the knowledge
of the one true God. And as to this our learned author
proposes to shew, that " the clear evidence of antiquity ex-
pressly informs us of these two particulars; that the errors
of polytheism were detected, and the doctrine of the unity
taught and explained in the mysteries (^)."

(6) See Arnob. advers. Gentes, his fifth book throughout.

{d) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 196. Marg. note-.

(<?) Ibid. p. 157.

Voi. I. 2 B

194 The Pagan Mysteries not designed to Part !•

One would expect after such a declaration, that the proofs
from antiquity, with respect to both these particulars, should
be very clear. Let us therefore briefly consider the evidence
that is produced.

The first thing proposed to be proved is, that the errors
of polytheism were detected in the mysteries: or, as he
elsewhere expresses it, that they discovered the whole delu-
sion of polytheism to such as were judged capable ^of the
secret. And he explains himself farther by saying, that
the aw-appHTk, or secret doctrines of the mysteries, over-
threw the vulgar polytheism, the worship of dead men:
and that the fabulous gods, the whole rabble of licentious
deities were routed there (y^). This representation of the
design of the Pagan mysteries is very honourable to them,
if it can be supported with clear evidence; but it appears to
me that not one of the testimonies produced for it by the
learned author of the Divine Legation comes up to the
point they are intended to prove. The first is a passage
quoted from St. Austin concerning an Egyptian hierophant,
who informed Alexander the Great, that even the deities
of an higher order had once been men(^). This is fol-
lowed by two quotations from Cicero, who, according to
our author, tells us, that " not only the Eleusinian myste-
ries, but the Samothracian and the Lemnian, taught the
error of polytheism (/i)*" ^^^ all that can be gathered
from the two passages here cited is, not that the error of
the vulgar polytheism was taught in the mysteries, but only
that the dii majorum gentium, the chief of the gods vul-
garly adored, had been taken from the human race into

(/) The passages here referred to are quoted above, p. 183,
.84.
(5") Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 157, 158.
(A) Div. Leg. p. 159, 160.

Chap. VIII. detect the Error of Polytheism. 1^

heaven. But Cicero, who says this, neither gives it as his
own opiriion, nor represents it as the doctrine of the mys-
teries, that therefore they were not to be regarded as gods,
nor to be worshipped as such. On the contrary, in one ef
those passages he plainly approves the deification of famous
and excellent men; and so he does on several other occa-
sions; instances of which were produced above, p. 100.
And the worship of such deities is what he expressly pre-
scribes in his book of laws. " Ex hominum genere con-
secratos coli lex jubet (i)." Julius Firmicus, in the pas-
sage produced from him, charges the Pagans with having
consecrated or deified dead men; but he is far from sup-
posing that the mysteries condemned that practice, but ra-
ther on the contrary that they approved and encouraged
it (i). These are all the testimonies brought to prove, that
the mysteries were designed to detect the error and delusion
of the vulgar polytheism: for as to the hint, as our author
calls it, given by Plutarch, that the true nature of daemons
was held forth in the mysteries, since that philosopher does
not explain what he means by it, but says a sacred silence is
to be observed, nothing can be concluded from it at all.
The whole amount then of the evidence on this head is no
more than this, that in the mysteries the initiated were in-
structed that the popular deities had been once men:
but no proof is brought, that the uTro^mrcc overthrew the
vulgar polytheism, the worship of dead men. Nor do I
believe any one passage can be produced from all Pagan
antiquity to shew, that the design of the mysteries was to
undeceive the people as to the vulgar polytheism, and to

(i) De Leg. lib. ii. cap. viii. p. 100. et cap. xi. p. 115.
Edit. Davis.

{k) Div, Leg. ubi supra, p. 162,

196 The Pagan Mysteries not designed to Part I.

draw them off from the worship of the deities commonly
adored. Their having been once men was very consistent,
in the notions which then obtained, with their divinity.
The Cretans, who, as this learned author observes from
Diodorus, celebrated the mysteries openly, and published
their «?ropp>}Tflf, or secret doctrines, i. e. those which in
other places were kept hidden or secret, without reserve,
boasted of having Jupiter's tomb among them; but this
did not hinder them from regarding and worshipping him
as the chief of the deities, the father of gods and men (/).
In like manner the Egyptian priests, as Plutarch informs
us, pretended to shew the sepulchre of Osiris, yet this was
not thought to be an objection against their worshipping
him as a god.

Allowing therefore the fact, that in the mysteries some
account was given of the history of their gods, which led
the initiated to conclude, that the popular deities, even the
principal of them, had been originally of the human race,
it does not follow, that therefore the mysteries were de-
signed to detect the error and delusion of the vulgar poly-
theism, and to overthrow the worship of their deities.
Some of the Pagans were indeed sensible, that if it was
once allowed that their gods had been of human extraction,
this might be turned to the disadvantage of the public re-
ligion. Hence it was, that the Roman pontiff Scsevola,
in a passage cited before, was for having it concealed from
the people that even Hercules, iEsculapius, Castor and
Pollux, had been once mortal men, lest they should not
regard and worship them as gods (w). And Plutarch, in
his treatise De Isid. et Osir. speaking of those who repre-
sented some of the gods to have been originally famous

(0 Div. Leg. p. 183.

{m) Apud August, de Civit. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 27. p. 84.

Chap. VIII. detect the Error of Polytheism, IQf

men, who had obtained the honour of divinity, says, that
this is to attempt to move things which ought not to be
stirred, and to bringdown those great and venerable names
from heaven to earth, and thereby to overturn and dissolve
that religious persuasion, which hath taken possesion of the
minds of almost all men from their birth: that it is to open
a wide door to the atheistical . crowd, who are for turning
divine things into human, and to give a splendid licence to
the iiUisions of Euhemerus the Messenian, whom he there
charges as having scattered all manner of atheism through
the w^orld (/z). It may seem a little surprising, that Plu-
tarch should here represent that as an impious and atheis-
tical doctrine, which, according to our learned author,
the mystagogues taught the initiated in the greater myste-
ries, and which Cicero and others made no scruple of
declaring. But whatever Plutarch and some others might
think of it, those that instituted and conducted the myste-
ries seem to have been of another mind. If they taught
the initiated, that the gods commonly received had been
once men, it is reasonable to suppose, that they took care
that the public religion should not suffer by it, by letting
them know, that notwithstanding this they ought to be
regarded as gods, and to have that divine honour and
worship rendered to them which antient tradition and the
laws required.

And indeed this seems plainly to follow from the con-
cessions which our learned advocate for the mysteries is
sometimes obliged to make. He tells us, that one important
use, to which what he calls the detection of the national gods y
that is, the shewing that they had been men, was designed,
was " to excite men to heroic virtue, by shewing them

(n) Plutarch. Oper. torn. ii. p. 359, 360. Edit. Francof.

198 The Pagan Mysteries not designed to Part I.

what honours the benefactors of nations had acquired by
the free exercise of it (o)." The honours here referred
to are divine honour s^2is he himself elsewhere calls them (/?).
This also appears from the passage he quotes from Tally's
second book of laws, where it is ordered, that those should
be worshipped whose merit had placed them in heaven:
as also from the fragment of Sanchoniathon, which he sup-
poses to have been the very history narrated to the 'ETFOTrlect
in the greater mysteries (^). He asks, " What stronger ex-
citement had heroic minds, than to be taught as they are in
this fragment, that public benefits to their fellow-creatures
were rewarded with immortality (r)?" It should have been
«aid, that, according to that fragment, they were rewarded
with divine honours: for it is there expressly said, that
after their death they were worshipped as gods, and had
sacrifices offered to them; of which several instances are
given. And he represents it as " the purpose of that frag-
ment to shew, that the popular deities were only dead men
deified («)." Now, the question is, whether the design of
introducing the history of their gods, as having been deified
men, was with a view to condemn the worshipping them,
or to approve of it? It could not be to condemn it, since

(o) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 155, where he adds, that " this was
the chief reason why princes, statesmen, and leaders of colonies
and armies, all aspired to be partakers of the greater myste-
ries."

(p) Ibid. p. 183.

Ig) Ibid. p. 168. 171.

(r) Div. Leg. p. 173. And he there represents these things
« as essential to the instruction of the mysteries;" and makes
this an argument to prove, that that history was composed for
the use of the mysteries.

W Ibid. p. 168, 169.

Chap. VIII. detect the Error of Polytheism, 199

by shewing the divine honours which were rendered to
them for the services they had done the public, they de-
signed to excite men to heroic virtue. If this was one im-
portant use of the mysteries intended by the legislators and
magistrates, as is plainly asserted in the passages now pro-
duced, this shews they did not intend by the mysteries to
overthrow the worship that was rendered to them. For
this would be to counteract and defeat their own design.
And indeed this is what our author himself seems express-
ly to grant; when speaking of what Virgil calls

" Vana superstitio, veterumque ignara deorum,"

He saith, that "the Pagan lawgiver took much care to
rectify it in the mysteries, not by destroying that species
of idolatry, the worship of dead men, which was indeed
his own invention, but by shewing why they paid that
worship, namely, for benefits done by those deified heroes
to the whole race of mankind (^)." Here it is declared,
that the Pagan lawgiver did not intend by the mysteries to
destroy the worship of dead men, but rather to give a rea-
son for it, which tended to justify that practice. And if this
were the case, I do not see how it can be said, that, " what
the uTTof^tiTx overthrew was the vulgar polytheism, the
worship of dead men (w)." Where the reader may observe,
that the vulgar polytheism and the worship of dead men are
used as synonymous terms.

I think these observations are sufficient to shew, that the
testimonies brought to prove that the popular deities were
once men, and were represented as such in the mysteries,
do not prove that the mysteries were intended to detect

(0 Div. Leg. p. 221,
(w) Ibid. p. 155,

200 No proof that the Doctrine of the Unity Part I,

the error and delusion of polytheism, and to subvert the
worship of those deities. This indeed was the inference
the Christians drew from it, who argued from the history
of their gods to disprove their divinity {x). And this
probably was the principal reason, why the mystagogues
were very careful in their entrance on the celebration
of the mysteries, that no Christian should be present at
them.

Let us now proceed to examine the proofs which are
brought for the second particular, That the doctrine of
the unity, or of the one God, the Creator and Governor
of the world, was taught in the mysteries (z/). This is
what this celebrated writer, in the passages above referred
to, expressly affirms to be clear from the evidence of anti-
quity. To the same purpose he elsewhere observes, that
'Hhe Creator of all things was the subject of the ttTro^pnret,
or secret in all the mysteries throughout the Gentile
world (2)." And again, that " the knowledge of the true
God was taught, though to few, all over the Gentile
world, and only in the mysteries (a)." But though I
will not pretend to affirm, that no such doctrine was
taught there, yet this, I think, may be safely said, that
there is no sufficient evidence brought to prove it.

The testimonies first produced are two of Clemens

(x) What Theophilus Antiochenus said to his Heathen friend
Autolycus, " the names of the gods thou professest to worship
are the names of dead men — T<e /^iv ovoftxTx *)v (p^s trlZerB-xt Bsay
ctijicxrec es"* ytK^ay uv^^a^uv" of which he there gives many in-
stances, was the charge constantly urged by the Christians in
their disputes against the Heathens. Thpoph. ad Autol. lib. i.
p. 75.

(y) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 163, et seq.

(2) Ibid. p. 166.

(a) Ibid. p. 168.

Chaf. VIII. tvas taught in the 31ysteries* 201

Alexandrinus, and one of Chrysippus (J?). But all that can
be gathered from them is, that the mysteries treated of
divine matters, of the nature of the gods, and of the uni*
verse: but they have not one word to shew that the doc-
trine of the unity was taught there. Nor is the passage pro-
duced from Strabo more express. It is true that Strabo
there saith, that "the secret celebration of the mysteries
preserves the majesty due to the divinity, and at the same
time intimates its nature, which hides itself from our
senses." But by the divinity he does not seem there to
understand the one Supreme God, as distinguished from
inferior deities, but the divinity in whose name and to
whose honour the mysteries were celebrated; and he im-
mediately after makes mention of Apollo, Ceres and
Bacchus, as the deities sacred among the Greeks, to each
of whom, according to the prevailing theology, divinity
was ascribed. And whereas our learned author adds, that
Strabo makes philosophy " the object of the mysteries,
which," he thinks, *' removes all ambiguity," I cannot find,
upon a careful examination of the passage as it lies in the
original, that Strabo there represents philosophy as the ob-
ject about which the mysteries are conversant. But allow-
ing it to be so, since he does not explain what philosophy
it was, it would still leave us in the dark. For that the
philosophers were far from agreeing in their notions of the
Divinity, sufficiently appears from Cicero's celebrated
book, De natur4 Deorum. (c). The passage that followeth
this is from Plutarch, who in his treatise of Isis and
Osiris, speaking of the temple of Isis, pretends to give the
etymology of the name, that it is called 'lo-f <«», because those
that approach it with prudence and sanctity shall know the

(A) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 163,
(c) P. 164.
Voj.. I. 2 C

202 No proof that the Doctrine df the Unity pARt L

TO ay. This is Plutarch's own gloss upon it; and that it is
not much to be depended upon will appear to any man that
impartially considers the nature and design of that treatise.
*' It was directly written to support the national religion,
which had taken the alarm. His purpose in it is to shew,
that all its multiform worship was only an address to the
Supreme Being under various names and covers." This is
the account our learned author himself gives of it, and he
has very well exposed Plutarch's scheme, and the shifts he
was put upon to support it (^). And indeed the read-
ing of that book of Plutarch, though it abounds with va-
riety of learning, is sufficient to convince any thinking man
of the strange confusion of the Pagan theology, especially
that of the Egyptians, which was most admired, and from
which many other nations derived theirs.

The next testimony is from Galen: speaking of the be-
nefit that would arise not only to the physician, but to the
philosopher, who labours to investigate the universal na-
ture, from considering the parts of the human body, he
says, that " those who initiate themselves here have no-
thing like it in the Eleusinian or Samothracian mysteries

— srSei' ofAtnov i^ncri^t ILXivcifioiq r\ Ktt] 'ZxfitB-^etftioti o^yi'eig" Galen
seems here to intimate, that the Divine Nature was treated
of in the mysteries; but says nothing from whence we can
form a judgment, whether they were designed to instruct
men in the unity, or what kind of doctrine was taught
there; only that it was not to be compared to that which was
to be learned from considering the human body; which is
the subject of his excellent book De Usu Partium.

The passage which is next produced is from Eusebius.
And it seems a little odd, that because Eusebius makes use
of some terms employed in the Pagan mysteries, he should

(e) Div. Leg. vol. ii. p. 308, 309. Edit. 4th.

Chap. VIII. was taught in the Mysteries. 203

be brought in as a voucher, that the doctrine of the unity
was taught in those mysteries. For this very passage shews
the contrary. Eusebius expressly says, that "for the He-
brew people alone was reserved the honour of being ini-
tiated into the knowledge of God the Creator of all things,
and of being instructed in the practice of true piety to-
wards him (^)." And it sufficiently appears from what he
afterwards says of the Pagan mysteries, that he was far
from thinking that the doctrine of the one true God was
taught there (/).

But what this learned writer seems to lay the principal
stress upon is the testimony of Josephus, than which, he
says, nothing can be more explicit. But I must confess, it
does not appear so to me. Josephus is there vindicating the
Jews against the calumnies of Apion, and shews the advan-
tages they enjoyed for the knowledge and practice of reli-
gion and piety above other nations. The Gentiles boasted
mightily of their initiations and mysteries, which were re-
garded as the most sacred part of their religion. Josephus,
who appears throughout all his works to be very careful
not to give offence to the Gentiles, says nothing to the dis-
paragement of their mysteries, which they would not have
borne; but supposing them to be as holy and divine as they
would have them to be, he observes, that they only returned
at certain seasons, and were solemnized for a few days;
whereas the Jews, by the benefit of their sacred rites and
laws, enjoyed all the advantages pretended to in those
mysteries, through the whole course of their lives. This
seems to be the genuine sense and scope of this passage.
But it is observable, that Josephus does not enter upon the
consideration of the nature and design of those mysteries,

(e) Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 165.

(/) Praepar. Evangel, lib. i, cap. 9,

204 No proof that the doctrine of the Unity Part I.

or the doctrines that were taught there; though he is very
plain and express in the account he gives of the principles
the Jews were taught in their laws, particularly relating to
the one true absolutely perfect God, the sole Cause of all
existence (^). I think therefore this passage affords no
valid argument to prove, that the doctrine of the unity was
taught in the mysteries. Nor do I see how it can well be
supposed, that a Jewish priest should be a competent wit-
ness to inform us of what was the principal secret of the
Pagan mysteries, and which they were bound under the
most tremendous seal of secrecy not to reveal.

These are all the testimonies produced by this admired
writer when he professedly undertakes to prove, that the
doctrine of the unity, or of the one true God, in opposition
to the Pagan polytheism, was taught in the mysteries. And
I think it may be left to any impartial reader, whether they
sufficiently prove this point. But there is another thing
which he urgeth afterwards, which, if it could be depended
upon, would be much more to his purpose than any of the
testimonies he had mentioned: and that is, the Hymn of
Orpheus, mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, in which
the doctrine of the unity is plainly asserted, and which he
endeavours to shew was the very hymn that was sung to the
initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries, by the hierophant, ha-
bited like the Creator. But it by no means appears, that
Clement intended to signify that that song made a part of
the mysteries. He takes notice indeed of a poem made by
Orpheus on the mysteries, and which he supposes to have
contained an account of those mysteries, and of the theology
of idols. And he also mentions the hymn in question, which
he supposes likewise to have been composed by Orpheus,
and which contained a quite contrary doctrine. But he does

(5-) Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 166.

Chap, VIII. was taught in the Mysteries* 205

not seem to mean, that this hymn was a part of that poem
in which Orpheus gave an account of the mysteries, but
rather to have looked upon it as a distinct poem composed
by Orpheus afterwards, and in which he supposes him to
have recanted the doctrines he had taught in the former.
This appears to me to be a just account of Clement's
meaning, and must be allowed to be so, if we would make
that learned father consistent with himself. His manner of
introducing it is remarkable. '^ The Thracian hicrophant,"
says he, " and who was at the same time a poet, Orpheus,
the json of Oeager, after he had opened or explained the
mysteries and the theology of idols, introduces the truth,
and makes his recantation;, singing, though late, a truly holy
song (A)." Here Clement seems plainly to oppose these
verses to the account Orpheus had given of the mysteries,
and makes them to be in effect a palinodia, or recantation of
the whole theology of the mysteries, which he calls the
theology of idols. But he represents him as late in making
this recantation and singing this holy song. And I do not
well see upon what ground this could be said, if that very
song made a part of the mysteries, and was sung by the
hierophant himself, at the very time of the celebration of
those mysteries, and before the assembly was dismissed.
For at that rate, the verses were sung in the proper season
in which they ought to be sung, according to the course and
order of the mysteries. Our learned author indeed has
translated the latter part of that passage differently from
what I have done. " The sacreds then truly begin, though
late, and thus he enters upon the matter." This seems to

Clem. Admonitio ad Gent. p. 63, 64, Edit. Potter.

£06 'No proof that the doctrine of the Unity Part 1.

imply that the hymn referred to properly belonged to the
mysteries, and made the most solemn and venerable part of
them: But I see nothing in the original that can answer to
those words in his translation, " the sacreds then truly
begin." Nor can I suppose, that if Clement had believed
this hymn, which he himself produces, as containing a clear
acknowledgment of the one true God, to have been a part,
and the most sacred part, of the mysteries, he would have
called those mysteries, as he does in a passage to be pro-
duced afterwards, " the mysteries of atheists;" or say of
those who celebrated and conducted them, that " thej^ do
not acknowledge him, who is truly and really God." To all
which it may be added, that this hymn of Orpheus is very
justly suspected, as would have appeared if the whole had
been produced. It is only the first part of it which is cited
by our learned author from Clement's admonition to the
Gentiles. But it is given more largely by the same Clement
m his Stromata {i); and at still greater length by Euse-
bius (>^), who quotes it from Aristobulus, a Jewish peripa-
tetic philosopher. And this philosopher produces it to shew,
that Orpheus and the Greeks took their doctrine of God
the Creator of the universe from the books of Moses. And
indeed some of the verses cited from this poem seem plainly
to point to Moses, and describe him as having been drawn
out of the water, and as having received the law from God
in two tables: and others of them relate no less plainly to
Abraham, to whom Clement applies them. The learned
Dr. Cudworth, though very willing to catch at any thing in
a Pagan writer that favours the doctrine of the unity, pro-
nounces these verses to be a manifest forgery, and so far
suspects some other of the verses ascribed to Orpheus, and

p) Clem. Strom, v. Opcr. p. 723, ct scq.
(jr) Prsep. Eyangel. lib. xiii, cap. 12.

Chap. VIII. was taught in the Mysteriesl 20^

produced by the fathers, that he thinks it not ingenuous to
lay a stress upon them; and therefore declares, that he will
produce no verses of Orpheus as an acknowledgment of the
one Supreme Being, but such as are attested by Pagan
writers (/). And even the authority of these is of no great
weight. Many learned persons, both antient and modern,
have been of opinion, that we have no verses of Orpheus
remaining which can be depended upon as his. As to the
hymn's being sung by the hierophant, habited like the Crea-
tor, this is advanced without any proof. And as in that case
it must have related to the most sacred part of the hidden
doctrine of the mysteries, and which, by our author's hy-
pothesis, was communicated by the hierophant only to a
few of the initiated under the most tremendous seal of se-
cresy, it is hard to conceive how it should come to be openly
published to the world, so that the Jews and Christians
should know it (m). We are told indeed by Eusebius, that
the hierophant in the Eleusinian mysteries put on the habit
of the demiurgus (n). But supposing this to be understood
of the Maker or Former of the world, it is no sufficient
proof that the proper doctrine of the unity was taught in the
mysteries. Ovid, whom the author of the Divine Legation
represents as having been very well acquainted with the
Pagan theology, and as having exhibited a beautiful system
of it in his Metamorphoses, has given an account of the
creation of the world in his first book. He attributes it to
God, whom he calls mundi fabricator, and ille opifex rerum,

(0 Intel. Syst. p. 300, 301.

(m) There are among the works ascribed by Heathen writers
to Orpheus, some hymns said to have been sung at the mys-
teries; but these are hymns to particular deities, and do not
relate to what is supposed to be the great secret of the mysteries.
See Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 179.

(w) Praep. Evangel, lib. iii. cap. 12. p. 117,

208 The Mysteries not fitted to spread the Part I*

mundi melioris origo— which contains a full explication of
the word LnfAtaeyd, Yet it does not appear, that he acknow-
ledged the unity in the sense here pretended. On the con-
trary he supposes a plurality of gods, and that the world
was made by one of them, but which of them to ascribe it
to he could not tell.

" Quisquis fuit ille deorum-(o)/*

I think it' appears from what has been offered, that
" there is no clear evidence of antiquity which expressly in-
forms us, that the doctrine of the unity was taught and
explained in the mysteries;" which is what our author pro-
posed to shew (^p). And I am persuaded, that if there had
been any such evidence, it could not have escaped the saga-
city and diligence of this very acute and learned writer. But
supposing it clearly proved, this could not have had any
great influence on the state of religion in the Pagan world.
As will appear from two considerations.

1. There is great reason to think that the notion given of
the Deity in the mysteries was not a very right and just
one. It will be afterwards shewn that the philosophers were
for the most part very wrong in their notions of the Divini-
ty; and it can hardly be supposed that the civil magistrates

(o) The Pagan writers soraetimes speak of one Maker of the
world, and sometimes they represent the gods as the makers of
the world. " O Jupiter, and the gods, the fathers and makers of
the earth and sea. — ^Q. Ziv kuI B-toi Trxii^ti xui ^cinrutytii Keti B-a-
A«t]>j5." Max. Tyr. Dissert. 34. See also Phurnut. De Nat. Deor.
p. 3. In an inscription on an Egyptian obelisk the sun is stiled
" Klii-m rtii oiKVfAivm. — The framer or orpificer of the world.*'
Fuller Miscel. Sacra, lib. i. cap. 14. And in the Orphic verses,
cited by Macrobius, he is represented as the father of sea and
land. Saturnal. lib. i. cap. 23.

Qi) Div, Leg. ubi supra, p. 157.

Chap. VIII. Knowledge of true Religion* 209

and great men of the state knew more of this matter than the
philosophers. It has been observed, that the Cretans pub-
lished the secret doctrines of the mysteries, and consequent-
ly the unity, if this was one of them, to all that had a desire
to know them. But if the Cretans acknowledged any one
god supreme above the rest, it was Jupiter, whose tomb
they pretended to have among them, and whom they re-
garded and celebrated as the Father of gods and men,
" the Ruler and Lord of all — '^Ag;^«y» text Kv^t'og :t<«vtov," as
Plutarch in his tract De Isid. et Osir. represents their
sense (^). As to the Egyptians, from whom other nations
are said to have derived their mysteries, their wise men
were much divided in their opinions concerning the Deity.
Porphyry tells us, that the Egyptians called the demiurgus,
or maker of the world, Kneph, whom they represented in
an human form (r). But the same Porphyry, in his epistle
to Anebo, an Egyptian priest, says, that Chseremon and
other learned Egyptians held the sun to be the demiurgus,
to whom they attributed the formation of all things, and
did not acknowledge any incorporeal author of the universe.
See Euseb. Prsep. Evangel, lib. iii. cap. xi. p. 115. com-
pared with lib. iii. cap. 4. p. 92. and cap. 13. p. 119. Plu-
tarch informs us from Hecataeus, that the Egyptians re-
garded the TO vuv^ or the universe, to be the First or Su-

(9) Plut. Oper. torn. ii. p. 381. D.

(r) Kneph seems, by Plutarch's account, to have been the
god that was particularly adored by the people of Thebais. Por-
phyry represents him as in a human form; but in the fragmeat
of Sanchoniathon, preserved by Eusebius, it is said as from the
sacred books of Taautus, that he attributed a divine virtue to
the serpent, which the Phoenicians called a good daemon, and
the Egyptians called him Kneph, whom they represented as a
serpent with a hawk's head. Euseb, Praep. Evang. lib. i.cap. 10,
p. 41.

Vol. I. 2D

210 The Mysteries not fitted^ &fc. Part I.

God. And Apuleius, in his account of the sacred mysteries
of Isis, calls her '* rerum natura parens;" which our author
savs, " shews plainly what were the a^roppV*, or secret doc-
trines of all the mysteries." And he elsewhere observes,
" that the universal nature was disguised under divers
names, and called by the Egyptians the queen Isis." Div.
Leg. ubi supra, p. 203 and 315.

2. The second consideration is this, that supposing^ them
to have taught just notions of God in the mysteries, it
was of no great use, because they taught this part of the
secret doctrine of the mysteries to a very few. This ap-
pears from some of the passages already produced, to which
I shall add two more which are very express to this pur-
pose. The one is in Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 166, marg. note,
where it is said, that the knowledge of God was communir
cated " to a few select Gentiles in these mysteries, celebrat-
ed in secret — which not being done in order to give him
glory, by promoting his public and general worship, was
done in vain." The other is ibid. p. 196, 197, marg. note,
where what St. Paul says of the Gentile sages is applied to
the mysteries, that " when they knew God, they glorified
him not as God by preaching him up to the people, but
carried away in the vanity of their imagination, by a mis-
taken principle of politics, that a vulgar knowledge of him.
would be injurious to society, shut up his glory in their mys-
teries, and gave the people in exchange for an incorruptible
God, an image made like to corruptible man and birdsy"* &c.
It is there also observed, that what the apostle saith, that
they worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator, " was strictly true with regard to the mysteries.
The Creator was there acknowledged by a small and select
number of the participants; but the general and solemn
worship in these celebrations was to their national idols."

211

CHAPTER IX.

5om#- farther considerations to shew, that the design of the mysteries was not to
detect the errors of the Pagan polytheism. The legislators and magistrates
who instituted and conducted the mysteries, were themselves the chief promo-
ters of the popular polytheism from political views, and therefore it is impro-
bable that they intended secretly to subvert it by the mysteries. Their scheme
upon such a supposition absurd and inconsistent. The mysteries were, in fact,
of no advantage for reclaiming the Heathens from their idolatries. The prirafr-
tive Christians not to be blamed for the bad opinion they had of the Pagan
mysteries.

JL HE observations which have been made may perhaps
be judged sufficient to shew, that little stress can be laid
upon the boasted expedient supposed to have been con-
trived by the civil magistrate for detecting the error of po-
lytheism, and instructing men in the knowledge of the one
true God. But it may be of use to add some farther consi-
derations on this subject.

And here it is proper to take notice of an argument,
which the celebrated author of the Divine Legation seems
to regard as a plain proof, that the mysteries were designed
to detect and overthrow the error of the vulgar polytheism.
He observes, that what the legislators and civil magis-
strates had principally in view in instituting and conducting
the mysteries, was the promoting the practice of virtue
among the people for the good of the society. " But there
was one insuperable obstacle to it, the vicious examples of
their gods. — It was therefore necessary to remedy this
evil, which they did by striking at the root of it. The mys-
tagogue taught the initiated, that Jupiter, Mercury, Venus,
Mars, and the whole rabble of licentious deities, were in-
deed only dead mortals, subject in life to the same passions
and vices with themselves. — The fabulous gods being thus

212 The Mysteries not designed to subvert Part I.

routed, the Supreme Cause of all things took their place "
&c. See the passage quoted at large above, p. 183.

I readily agree with this learned writer, that the ill effect
of the vicious examples of the gods could not be effectually
prevented, but by overturning the vulgar polytheism, and
discarding the popular deities. But the antient Heathens
were of a different opinion. Some of them made no scruple
of declaring their disapprobation of the vicious actions as-
cribed to their gods in the poetical fables: and yet it does
not appear that they were for rejecting the deities them-
selves, to whom those actions were ascribed, or turning the
people from the worship of them. As, by our author's ac-
knowledgment, they were only the poetical stories about
the vicious actions of the gods that, in their opinion, made
polytheism hurtful to the state, they thought they might
still maintain the established deities in the worship which
was rendered to them according to the laws, and yet pre-
vent the ill influence of those fables upon the people. To
this purpose it was pretended, that those stories were not to
be understood in the gross literal sense; and that they had a
hidden meaning contained under them. Of this we have a
specimen in the physical explication given by Varro of the
story of Proserpine's having been ravished by Pluto, which
was one of the things represented in the Eleusinian myste-
ries (a). This was undoubtedly a fundamental defect in their
scheme. For whilst the poetical mythology kept its place in
the public religion and worship, and the stories and antient
traditions concerning the gods were held sacred among the
people, no physical or allegorical interpretations, which
were for the most part strained, could prevent the ill influ-
ence which the literal and obvious meaning would naturally

(a) Apud August. De Civ. Dei, lib. vii. cap. 20. p. 136. Edit.
Bened.

Chap. IX. the popular Pagan Idolatry. 213

have upon them. And for this reason among others it could
scarce be expected, that the mysteries should have a good
effect in rectifying the religion or morals of the people.
They were by no means intended to abolish the public
system of polytheism, and whilst that continued in force
with which those fables were so closely interwoven, all at-
tempts to defeat the bad effects of them were ineffectual
and vain.

That the mysteries were not designed to overthrow the
vulgar polytheism, may, I think, be fairly argued from this
consideration, that the legislators and civil magistrates who
first instituted the mysteries, and continued to have the
chief direction of them, " had," as our learned author ob-
serves, " the chief hand in the rise of the vulgar polytheism,
and contrived that polytheism for the sake of the state, to
keep the people in awe, and under a greater veneration for
their laws (^)." And could it be expected from such legisla-
tors and magistrates, that they, who, by his own acknowledg-
ment, regarded not truth but utility (^c), should in good
earnest attempt to draw the people off from that polytheism
which they themselves had encouraged and established for
the welfare of the state, and to keep the people under a

{p) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 156.

(c) Speaking of the hidden doctrines of the schools of philoso-
phy, and those of the mysteries of religion, he says, " They could
not be the same, because their ends were very different: the
end of philosophy being only truth, the end of religion only
utility." p. 151. And in a marginal note, ibid, it is said concern-
ing the legislator and civil magistrate, that " whilst he was too
little solicitous about truth, he encouraged a polytheism destruc-
tive of society, to regulate which, he, successfully however, em-
ployed the mysteries.'* With what success these mysteries were
employed to regulate the vulgar polytheism, sufficiently appears
from the observations which I have here made, and shall farther
make upon this subject.

214 The Mysteries not designed to subvert Part I.

greater veneration for the laws? After having said, that
*' the fabulous gods were routed in the mysteries, and that
the initiated were taught the doctrine of the unity, the Su-
preme Cause of all things," he observes, that " these were
the truths, which Varro tells us, it was inexpedient for the
people to know, imagining the error of the vulgar poly-
theism to be so inveterate, that it was not to be expelled
without throwing the society into convulsions (<^)." And
any one that duly considers the maxims by which the an-
tient legislators and great men of the state governed them-
selves, will not readily believe that they were capable of
forming a scheme, the tendency of which was, in their opi-
nion, to throw the society into convulsions. If it be urged,
that this was the very reason of their " discovering the de-
lusion of polytheism in the mysteries only to such of the
initiated as were judged capable of the secret;" and that
" this being supposed the shaking foundations was to be
done with all possible circumspection, and under the most
tremendous seal of secresy (^);" let us see whether this
will account for the conduct of the legislators and magis-
trates, and render their scheme consistent. Upon this view
of it the expedient must stand thus: The legislators and
magistrates, being convinced of the error and evil tendency
of the vulgar polvtheism, and yet being persuaded that it
would be dangerous to the state to let this be generally
known, contrived the mysteries, in which the initiated were
to be instructed, that the deities commonly adored were no

(rf) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 155, 156.

(e) He goes on to shew, that they were taught, that the gods
vould punish the revealers of the secret, and not only them
but the hearers of it too: besides which the state decreed capital
punishments against the betrayers of the mysteries. Div. Leg.
ubi supra, p. 180.

Chap. IX. the popular Pa^an Idolatry. 215

gods but only dead men, and that there is onlv one true
God, the Creator and governor of the world; and at the
same time were to be laid under the strictest obligations to
keep this to themselves, and not to divulge it. The language
of the mystagogue to the initiated must therefore be sup-
posed to have been to this purpose. I am now going to re-
veal to you a thing which is of the highest importance to
you to know, because I look upon you to be persons fit to
be entrusted with the secret: and that is, that those which
are commonly esteemed gods, and the worship of which
makes up the public religion of the state, are not gods, nor
ought to be regarded as such: that they are only dead men:
that this rabble of licentious deities, Jupiter, Mercury,
Venus, Mars, and others of the like sort, ought to be rout-
ed and discarded; and that you should acknowledge and
adore the one only God, the Creator and Governor of the
universe. But then you are bound by the most sacred oaths
and engagements to keep what I now tell you an inviolable
secret. To reveal it would expose you to the divine ven-
geance, and to the capital punishments denounced by the
laws against the betrayers of the mysteries; and it would
be ©f the most pernicious consequence to spread this
doctrine among the people. You must still go on to
worship the popular gods as before, and must never at-
tempt the least alteration in the established religion and
worship.

This appears to me to be a strange inconsistent scheme.
And it is hard to conceive what the legislator could pro-
pose by so odd and unaccountable a management. It was
not the virtue of a few individuals but of the society in
general that he must be supposed to have in view: and
how could this end be answered by committing the secret,
which is supposed to be of such importance to the morals
of the people, only to a few of the initiated, who were at
the same time brought under the most solemn engagements

S16 The Mysteries not designed to subvert Part I.

not to discover it? And even as to those few to whom the
secret was communicated, to what purpose would it be to
instruct them in doctrines they were not to make use of?
Or, what opinion could they have of the honesty of those
that should instruct them to despise those popular deities,
whom yet they would have them publicly adore? And
who should discover to them the delusion of the vulgar
polytheism, and the falsehood of the religion of their coun-
try, and yet urge it upon them as a duty to conform to it?
If the mysteries were founded upon such a plan, it is not
to be wondered at, that they had little effect on the minds
and manners of men.

But I cannot bring myself to believe, that the legislators
ever intended, that there should be any thing in the myste-
ries which should expose the established religion and wor-
ship to contempt. If Virgil has, according to our author's
most ingenious conjecture, made a genuine representation
of the mysteries in the 6th book of his iEneid, " non tem-
nere divos — ^not to contemn the gods," was a lesson care-
fully inculcated there (y). Instead of being intended to pre-
judice persons against the religion of their country, it is
reasonable to believe that they were rather designed to
strengthen their attachment to it; and by shews and strik-
ing representations, fitted to work upon the imaginations of
the people, to impress them with a greater awe and vene-
ration for their deities. Accordingly it is observable, that
those who were most zealous for the mysteries, were wont
also to manifest the greatest zeal for the Pagan religion; and
they who were enemies to the Pagan polytheism, as the

(/) It was one of the laws of Charondas, as Stobseus informs
us, ".Let the contempt of the gods be reckoned among the
greatest crimes." Stob. serm. 42.

Chap. XL the popular Pagan Idolatry, 217

primitive Christians universally were, had a very bad opi-
nion of the mysteries.

That they were not intended to subvert by their secret
doctrines the vulgar polytheism, may be farther argued from
this consideration, that these mysteries were according to
this learned writer, " under the presidency of various gods,
and were celebrated in their names, and to their honour."
He names Isis and Osiris, Mythras, the mother of the gods,
Bacchus, Venus, Jupiter, Ceres, and Proserpina, Castor
and Pollux, Vulcan, and many others (^). And he observes,
that " each of the Pagan gods had (besides the public and
open) a secret worship paid unto him: to which none were
admitted but those who had been selected by preparatory
ceremonies, called initiations. This secret worship was
termed the mysteries. But though every god had, besides
his open worship the secret likewise, yet this latter did not
every xohere attend the former, but only there where he
was the patron god, or in principal esteem (A)." I think it
hence follows, that there was only this difference between
the public worship of those gods, and that rendered to them
in the mysteries, that the latter was attended with some
peculiar circumstances, and performed in a more solemn
manner, not by all promiscuously, but by those who by a
particular initiation were prepared for it. The mysteries
therefore were not designed to discard the worship of those
deities, but to add a greater solemnity to it. And particularly
they were intended for the honour of the patron deity, and
were celebrated in places where he " was had in principal
esteem." But how could it be said, that in the mysteries
the secret worship of those deities was celebrated, if the
design of the secret doctrine of those mysteries was to shew

{g) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 138.
\h) Ibid. p. 137.
Vol. L 2 E

218 The Mysteries not designed Part I.

that they were no gods, and that no worship was due to
them at all? And indeed, if the people had the least suspi-
cion that this was the design of the secret doctrine taught
in the mysteries, far from regarding them with so profound
a veneration, they would have had them in abhorrence (i).
The Athenians, who expelled Anaxagoras, and put Socrates
to death, for shewing, as they supposed, a disrespect to the
religion and gods of their country, would never havje en-
dured mysteries, in which the initiated were taught the
error of polytheism, and whose uTro^pnrx overthrew the wor-
ship of the gods commonly adored, and even of those to
whose honour the mysteries were celebrated. It was for
seeming in a drunken frolick to make a mock of the holy
mysteries, and for offending the goddesses Ceres and Pro-
serpina, to whom they were consecrated, that Alcibiades
had the judgment of death passed upon him, and which
would certainly have been inflicted, if he had not saved
himself by flight. The rage the people of Athens were put
into by this, and by the breaking the images of Mercury,
which happened at the same time, and the numbers that
were put to death on the account of it, shew how very zeal-
ous they were for the honour of their gods, and that they
thought it an execrable impiety and prophaneness to do any

(i) Every citizen of Athens was bound by oath to defend and
conform to the religion of his country. This oath was in the name
of the gods, and concluded thus I swear by these following dei-
ties, the Agraulij Enyalius, Mars, Jupiter, the earth, and Diana.
See Potter's Greek Antiquities, vol. i. p. 141, 142. 1st edit. And
to have taught them, though in the most secret way, that the
gods they had sworn by were no gods, would have been looked
upon as an attempt to subvert the commonwealth at the founda-
tions, and to dissolve the sanction and obligatory force of those
oaths, which were thought to be the most powerful bands of the
public safety and security.

Chap. XI. to subvert Idolatry. 219

thing which tended to cast contempt on the popular deities,
on their images and sacred rites. A particular account of
this may be seen in Plutarch's life of Alcibiades.

To all this may be added an argument from fact and ex-
perience, which seems to me to be of great force, and that
is, that though the mysteries were generally celebrated in
almost all the Heathen nations, and especially throughout
the whole Roman empire, no effect of them appear in turn-
ing any of the people from their polytheism and idolatry.
He talks indeed, in a passage cited above, of the legislator's
having " successfully employed" the mysteries for regulat-
ing the vulgar polytheism. But how is this proved? Can
any instances be produced of persons that were converted
from the public idolatry and polytheism by the mysteries?
Notwithstanding this boasted expedient it still kept its
ground, and made a continual progress among the Gentiles.
The argument will receive an additional strength and force,
if applied to the case of the Athenians. Athens was the
principal seat of the Eleusinian, which were esteemed the
most sacred and venerable of all the mysteries. There they
were though to be best understood, and to be celebrated in
their greatest purity, and in the most religious and solemn
manner. All the Athenians in general were initiated. It
might therefore have been expected, that if the design of
the mysteries had been such as is represented, it would
have inspired some of them with a secret contempt of their
deities, and of the common polytheism: and that this, in
time and by degrees, would have wrought a remarkable
change among them. But the contrary is manifest from their
whole history. They seem rather to have been more and
more devoted to their idolatries and superstitions. Nor had
their polytheism ever been at a greater height than at the
time of our Saviour's appearing.

The last thing I shall observe concerning the mysteries,
and which I confess has no small weight with me, is, that

220 The primitive Christians had a bad Part I.

if the design of them had been such as the right reverend
and learned author of the Divine Legation of Moses re-
presents it, it is unconceivable that the antient Christian
writers should have so universally exclaimed against them,
as he owns they did. It may be reasonably supposed, that
considering the great number of persons which were convert-
ed from Heathenism to Christianity in the first ages of the
Christian church, many of whom were of considerable -parts
and learning, there were not a few who had been admitted
both to the lesser and greater mysteries, and were therefore
well acquainted with the nature and design of them. And
though, whilst they continued Pagans, they might have
thought themselves obliged not to reveal the secret doc-
trines which had been taught in the mysteries, yet upon
their embracing Christianity they would not have looked
upon themselves to be any longer under engagements to
keep the secret. If they knew that in the mysteries men
were brought under the most solemn obligations to a holy
and virtuous life, and not only so, but that the secret doc-
trine taught in the most sacred part of the mysteries was
designed to detect the error of polytheism, to rout the fa-
bulous deities, and to turn men from idols to the one true
Supreme God, they must have had a good opinion of them,
as so far at least coinciding with the design of Christianity,
Why then did they not insist upon this in their apologies
for the Christian religion, and in their disputes with the
Heathens argue from their own mysteries against the po-
pular idolatry? On the contrary, in discourses addressed to
the Heathens themselves, they frequently speak of the mys-
teries in terms of the utmost abhorrence, as impure and
abominable (^), and as rather tending to confirm the people

{k) Severe reflections have been made by several authors on
the antient fathers for what they have said against the mysteries.

■4

Chap. IX. opinion of the Pagan Mysteries. 221

in their idolatry, than to draw them off from it. The making
such odious representations of the mysteries, supposing they
knew the design of them to be what this learned writer re^
presents it (and if it had been so some of them must have
known it) would have been absolutely inconsistent with
common honesty and ingenuity: nor can I believe that such
good and excellent persons, as many of the primitive Chris-
tians undoubtedly were, could have been capable of such a
conduct.

It were easy to produce many testimonies from them in
relation to the mysteries: but it may be sufficient to
mention what Clemens Alexandrinus says upon this sub-
ject, who was a man of learning and probity. In his exhor-
tation to the Gentiles he insists pretty largely upon the
mysteries, and introduces it by declaring, that he will

And yet that these were in many instances extremely corrupted,
sufficiently appears from many express testimonies of the Pagan
writers themselves, notwithstanding the strong bias they had in
their favour. Apuleius, in that work of his which was designed
to recommend the Pagan religion and mysteries, represents the
mysteries of Cybele and the Syrian goddess in an abominable
light; and though he highly extols those of Isis, other Pagan
writers give a bad account of them. Juvenal makes no scruple to
call them

" Isiacae sacraria lenae." Satyr, vi. vers. 488.

Our learned author himself mentions " the horrid abuses and
corruptions of the mysteries," and owns that they degenerated
into an odious sink of vice and immorality." Div. Leg. ubi supra,
p. 190 and p. 196. marg. note. This was the state they were ge-
nerally in when the fathers spoke of them. And it is not much to
be wondered at, if this created a strong prejudice in their minds
against the original design of the mysteries, and the persons
who first instituted them.

S22 The primitive Christians had a bad Part I,

give a true account of them, and will not be ashamed to
speak plainly of those things which they are not ashamed
to worship. He speaks all along like one that was well
acquainted with those mysteries, who knew what the
symbols of them were, and the things which were there
yepresented and exhibited. And it appears from the ac-
counts he gives, that the representations made in the
mysteries were agreeable to the fables of the poets- and
mythologists, concerning Jupiter, Ceres, Proserpina, Bac-
chus, and other deities: that in the Eleusinian sacra, they
celebrated the rape of Proserpina, the lamentations of
Ceres, her wanderings in quest of her daughter, her
congress with Jupiter, and supplications to him, with se-
veral other things which were both ridiculous and ob-
scene. He calls those who brought those mysteries from
Egypt into Greece " the fathers of an execrable supersti-
tion; who sowed the seed of wickedness and corruption,
rwgg^* KXKtxi xxi^B-o^uif in human life: and says, the mys-
teries were full of delusion and portentous representations,
calculated to impose upon the people, uTrecrm Kttt n^ccreU?
tft.-Kh.tee. ( /)." He concludes his account of them with say-
ing, " these are the mysteries of atheistical men. I may
rightly call those atheists, who are destitute of the know-
ledge of him who is truly God, and most impudently wor-
ship a boy discerped, or torn in pieces by the Titans, a
woman lamenting, and the parts which modesty forbids to
name." And he repeats it again, that they are ignorant of
God, uyiavTt rov ^gflK, and do not acknowledge that God who
really is or exists (m).

This whole account of the Heathen mysteries given by
Clemens is transcribed and approved by Eusebius, who

(/) Clem. Alex. Cohort, ad Gentes, p. 13, 14. Edit. Potter,
(m) Ibi(J. p. 19, 20.

Chap. XL opinion of the Pagan Mysteries* 225

was himself a very able judge. And he introduces it by-
observing, that Clemens knew these mysteries by his own
experience (n). The account which Arnobius, who had
been a learned Pagan, gives of the mysteries, particularly
of the Eleusinian mysteries, celebrated at Athens, is per-
fectly agreeable to that of Clemens {o).

Our learned and able advocate for the mysteries, to ob-
viate the prejudice which might arise against them from
the testimony of the antient Christian writers, endeavours
to account for the ill opinion they had of them, by ob-
serving, that " they bore a secret grudge to the mysteries
for their injurious treatment of Christianity at its first
appearance in the world. The Christians, for their con^
tempt of the national deities, were deemed atheists by the
people, and were so branded by the mystagogues, and ex-
posed among the rest in Tartarus in their solemn shews
and representations. This without doubt was what shar-
pened the fathers against the mysteries, and they were not
always tender in loading what they did not approve (/»)."
This is by no means a proper apology for the antient
Christians, if the charge they brought against the mysteries
was false and calumnious. But the truth is, the very reason
our learned author gives of the sharpness which the antient
Christian writers expressed against the mysteries, is a
proof that the design of them was not really such as he
represents it to have been. For it appears from it, that the
mystagogues and managers of the mysteries did what they
could to uphold the common polytheism and idolatry: and
this was the true cause of their enmity to Christianity.
They represented the Christians as atheists, because they

(n) Praep. Evangel, lib. ii. cap. 3. p. 61, et seq.

(o) Advers. Gentes, lib. v. p. 173, et seq. Lugd; Bat. 1651.

(/j) Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 199. Edit. 4th.

224 The primitive Christians had a bad Part I.

declared against the worship of the publicly adored deities.
Whereas if the design of the secret doctrine of the greater
mysteries had been to detect the error of the vulgar poly-
theism, and to teach the initiated that the popular deities
were really no gods, the charge might have been retorted
upon themselves.

The last thing this celebrated writer has urged, to take
off the force of the testimonies of the antient fathers of
the church against the mysteries, and which he calls the
strange part of the story, is, that after all they had said
against them "they should so studiously and formally
transfer the terms, phrases, rites, ceremonies, and dis-
cipline of these odious mysteries into our holy religion."
To which purpose he has a long quotation from Casaubon's
16th exercitation against the annals of Baronius (^). And
he adds, " Sure then it was some more than ordinary ve-
neration the people had for these mysteries that could in-
cline the fathers of the church to so fatal a counsel." It
will be allowed that the mysteries were had in great ve-
neration among the Pagans, and that the fathers knew them
to be so. And for that reason, if they had any notion that
the design of the mysteries was what he represents it to
have been, they would undoubtedly have taken advantage
of that veneration for drawing the people off from the
worship of the popular divinities, to the adoration of the
one true God, the Creator and Governor of the universe.
The veneration the people had for the mysteries affords
not the least presumption, that the design of them was to
detect and overthrow the popular polytheism, but rather
the contrary. The Christians certainly did not consider
them in this light: and yet because of the veneration

{q) Div. Leg. ubi supra, p. 20Q.

Chap. IX. opinion of the Pagan Mysteries* S,%B

which was so generally paid them, they often applied to
their own use the terms made use of in those mysteries,
the better to gain upon the Heathens, and to shew that
Christianity effected that in reality which the Pagan mys-
teries vainly pretended to.

I shall produce a remarkable passage of this kind from
Clement of Alexandria, in the latter end of that very
discourse in which he shews he had the worst opinion
imaginable of the mysteries (r). He there speaks of the
Christian religion in allusion to the mysteries of Bacchus^
and invites the Heathens to quit the one in order to em--
brace the other. He all along employs the terms which
were made use of in those rites and mysteries* He talks
of celebrating *' the venerable orgia of the word," To
the hymns which were sung at the mysteries, he opposes
a hymn sung to the great King of the universe. He
speaks of a Christian's being initiated, and cries out, " O
truly holy mysteries! being initiated I am made holy—
'£i rm uyiav ax; uXti^aq ^vi-ij^iav.' elyioi yivof^xi f^vSfiivog^* He says^

^'''U^o^uvrii Sf 0 Kv^toi, — The Lord himself acts the part of an
hierophant," or interpreter of the mysteries. And he con-*
eludes, " These are the Bacchanalia of my mysteries: come
then, and be initiated."

Can any man think that Clement makes this allusion to
the mysteries, because he looked upon them to be really
holy and useful things? The contrary plainly appears from
this very passage, as well as from what he had said before
in the same discourse. But as they were accounted holy^
and were had in great veneration among the Pagans, and
as the latter Platonists and Pythagoreans represented them
as the most perfect means of purifying the soul, he takes
occasion to shew that that venerable sanctity and purity

(r) Clem. Alex. Cohort, ad Gentes, p. 92. Edit. Potter.
Vol. L ^ F

226 The primitive Christians had a bad Opinion^ ^c. Part I.

was really to be found in the Christian religion, and its
sacred doctrines and rites, which they falsely attributed to
their mysteries. Yet I agree with this learned writer in the
judicious remark he makes, that the affecting to transfer
the terms, phrases, and ceremonies of the mysteries into
our holy religion, had a bad effect. The symbolizing in this
and several other instances with the Pagans in their customs
and ways of expression, from a desire, no doubt, of soften-
ing their prejudices against Christianity, contributed very
early to vitiate and deprave that religion which, as he ob-
serves, a Pagan writer could not but see and acknowledge
was " absoluta et simplex," as it came out of the hands of
its author (J),

It may perhaps be thought that I have insisted too
largely upon the nature and design of the Pagan mysteries.
But it seemed to me to be necessary for setting the sub-
ject I am upon, especially with regard to the civil theology
of the Pagans, in a proper light. The learned Mr. Des
Voeux several years ago in his life of Julian, vol. ii. p.
287, et seq. offered some judicious observations to shew
that the mysteries were not intended to overturn the Pa-
gan polytheism. But his design did not lead him to con-
sider this matter so fully as I have done. I shall only add,
that in the remarks that are here made I have had a spe-
cial regard to the fourth and last edition of the Divine
Legation^ in which there are several corrections and im-
provements made by the right reverend and learned author,
which do not appear in the former editions of that cele-
brated work.

(«) Ammian. Marcell. Hist. lib. xxi. cap. 16. Div. Leg. ubi
supra, p. 200.

227

CHAPTER X.

The philosophical Theology of the antieat Pagans considered. High encomiums
bestowed upon the Pagan philosophy. Yet it was of little use for leading the
people into a right knowledge of God and religion, and for reclaiming them
from their idolatry and polytheism. This shewn from several considerations.
And first, if the philosophers had been right in their own notions of religion,
they could have but small influence on the people, for want of a proper autho-
rity to enforce their instructions.

Having considered the poetical and fabulous theo-
logy of the Pagans which was taught by the mytholo-
gists, as also the civil theology which was countenanced
and established by the public authority, and shewn the de-
plorable state of religion in the Gentile world with respect
to both these, I shall now proceed to what Varro calls the
physical or natural, and which, he says, was that of the
philosophers. It is the more necessary to consider this, be-
cause those gentlemen who had denied the necessity or
even the expediency of divine revelation, have spoken
with the highest admiration of the antient Heathen phi-
losophers. That they held out a sufficient light to man-
kind to guide them into the right knowledge of religious
truth and duty, if they would but have attended to their
instructions: that in them we have an evident proof of
what human reason can do, when duly exercised and im-
proved: and that the world needed no better direction than
what those excellent persons gave, as appears from their
admirable writings, many of which are come down to us,
and are fitted to convey the noblest notions of religion and
the Divinity. And it must be acknowledged, that if we are
to take the account which the philosophers themselves give
of the excellency of their philosophy, the greatest matters
might be expected from it for the instruction of mankind.

228 Of the Philosophical Theology Part I.

The Stoics and others defined philosophy to be " rerum
divinarum humanarumque scientia — the knowledge of
things divine and human." Plato calls it the gift, Cicero
not only so, but the invention of the gods {f). This last-
mentioned excellent author, speaking of philqsophy in his
first book of laws, saith, that " nothing more excellent,
more beautiful, more useful, and profitable, was ever given
by the immortal gods for the benefit of human life. — ^ihil
51 diis immortalibus uberius, nihil florentius, nihil prsesta-
bilius hominum vitse datum est (w)." Plato in his Timjeus
carries it farther: for he says not only that " no greater
good ever was given, but ever will be given by the favour
and bounty of the gods to the human race." Cicero trans-
lates that passage of Plato thus: " Quo bono nullum optabi-
lius, nullum prsestantius, neque datum est immortalium
deorum concessu atque munere, neque dabitur {x)?''

And as they were sensible of the importance and ne-
cessity of knowing and worshipping the Deity, so they
represented the instructing men in this to be one principal
business of philosophy. " It hath instructed us," saith
Cicero, " in the first place in what relates to the worship
of the gods, and next in justice towards men, which con-
sisteth in the offices of human society, and hath also form-
ed us to modesty and true greatness of mind." He adds,
that ^' it hath dispelled darkness from our minds, that we
might be enabled to behold all things, things above and
things below, the first, middle, and last things. — Hsec nos
primum ad illorum [deorum] cultum, deinde ad jus homi-
num, quod situm est in generis humani societate, tum ad
modestiam, magnitudinemque animi erudivit: eademque ab

if) Tuscul. Disput. lib. i. cap. 26. p. 63. Edit. Davis, 4to.
\u) De Leg. lib. i. cap. 22. p. 68. Edit. Davis, 2d.
{x) Fragm. d^ Universe, c^p. 14.

Chap. X. of the Antient Pagans. 229

animo tanquam ab oculis caliginem dispulit, ut omnia su-
pera, infera, prima, ultima, media videremus (z/)." It is
scarce possible to carry the encomium higher. If this be
so, philosophy must certainly be sufficient to instruct us in
every thing that it is proper for us to know. We need no
other nor better guide. To the same purpose Seneca saith,
that " it is the proper work of philosophy to find out the
truth both in divine and human things. — Hujus opus unum
est in divinis humanisque verum invenire (2)." Epictetus
represents it as essential to true piety to form right opi-
nions concerning the gods, and intimates that this is what
philosophy teacheth us {a), Plutarch in his tract De libcris
educand. after having observed, that there is one only art
capable of curing the diseases of the mind, and that this is
philosophy, particularly mentions it as one of its principal
advantages, that by the assistance of philosophy we know
how to demean ourselves towards the gods, our parents,
&c. that is, as he explains it, to worship the gods, to ho-
nour our parents, &c.

Let us therefore particularly enquire, whether and how
far the philosophers, with all the aids of human learning
and strength of genius, were of use to instruct mankind in
the right knowledge of God and religion.

And I think, allowing all that can be reasonably said
in their favour, it must be acknowledged, that in fact
they were of little service for recovering the nations from
the gross superstitions and idolatries into which they were
fallen, to the true knowledge and worship of the Deit)''.
And several considerations may be offered to shew that

(y) Tuscul. Disput. ubi supra, p. 64.
(z) Sen. Epist. 90.

(a) Epictet. Enchir. cap. 31. Edit. Upton, compared with
Dissert, Ub. ii. cap. 14. sect. 3.

230 The People had little regard Part I.

this was a work which, as things were circumstanced, they
were not fitted to accomplish.

And first, it is to be observed, that if we should sup-
pose the philosophers to have been never so right in their
own notions, they had little influence on the people, for
want of a proper authority to enforce their instructions.
The people for the most part thought themselves very
little concerned in what the philosophers taught in their
schools. They looked upon their philosophical disquisi-
tions and disputations to be the exercises of wit and genius,
done rather for an ostentation of their parts and learning,
than for any emolument to the public. But especially they
paid little attention to them in religious matters relating to
the gods and their worship. The philosophers were not
the authorized ministers of religion. The people were
governed by the religion of the state, which was admi-
nistered by the priests, to which the philosophers them-
selves conformed, and urged the people to conform. It
has been already observed from Varro, that as to what
related to the gods, the people were more inclined to follow
the poets than the philosophers. Nor were the great men
of the state, many of whom were also priests, willing that
the people should be under the direction of the philoso-
phers in matters of religion. That eminent statesman and
pontiff Scsevola before-mentioned^ speaking of the philoso-
phic theology, or doctrine of the gods, saith, " that it was
not proper for cities, because it had some things in it need-
less and superfluous, and some things which it may be
hurtful to the people to know. — Secundum genus [quod est
traditum a philosophis] non congruit civitatibus, quod ha-
beat aliqua supervacua, aliqua etiam quae obsit populo nosse
(^)." And Varro, speaking of what the philosophers dis-

(*) Apud August. De Civ. Dei, lib. iy. cap. 37. p. 84.

Chap. X. to the Philosophers, 231

puted concerning the gods, was for confining their disputes
and speculations concerning the gods within the walls of
the schools, and not producing them to the public, as being
what the people could not bear. " Qua facilius inter parie-
tes in schola, quam extra in foro ferre possunt aures." And
indeed the disputes among the philosophers relating to the
gods, which he there mentions, were of such a kind, that
the publishing them among the people would rather have
confounded than instructed them (c). Besides there was
such a disagreement among them in their opinions, that if
the people had been for governing themselves absolutely
by their authority, they would have been at a loss whom to
follow: of which we need no better proof than the account
Cicero gives of them in his celebrated books De Natura
Deorum. They left them therefore for the most part to
dispute about these things in their schools, without trou-
bling themselves much about their opinions or arguments.
And as for the politicians and civil magistrates, Cotta, no
doubt, spoke their sense, when he declared, that " in mat-
ters of religion he chose to follow Ti. Coruncanius, P.
Scipio, P. Scsevola, who were chief pontiffs, not Zeno, or
Cleanthes, or Chrysippus: and that he set a higher value
upon what C. Lselius, the augur, said in his noble oration
on religion, than upon the doctrines of any of the principal
Stoics. — Cum de religione agitur Ti. Coruncanium, P.
Scipionem, et P. Scsevolam, pontifices maximos, non Zeno-
nem, aut Cleanthem, aut Chrysippum sequor: habeoque
C. Lselium augurem, eundemque sapientem, quem potius

(w) Apud Augustin. De Civit. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 5. p. 116.
The disputes he there refers to are thus expressed by him:
" Dii qui sint, ubi, quod genus, quale, quonam tempore, an ab
aeterno fuerint, an exigne sint, ut Heraclilus, an ex numeris, ut
Pythagoras, an ex atomis, ut Epicurus,"

232 The Philosophers despised the People. Part L

audiam, dicentem de religione in ilia oratione nobili, quaiti
quenquam principem Stoicorum {d),^^

And as the people gave little attention to the opi-
nions of the philosophers, so the philosophers despised
the people, as incapable of receiving and profiting by
their instructions. Plato observes, that " those who philoso-
phize are necessarily blamed or reproached by the multi-
tude, as also by those who desire to please them. — T85 ^<Ad-
€o(pSvTeci ctyu[Kii tf/i'y6TB-tti vV ivrav (e)." And again, that *"*■ the
generality of men were unfavourably affected towards
philosophy. — XxXf^a^ ^go$ (ptXero^txt T8$ TffoXXa^ ^kckiit^xi ( /^).'*
There is a remarkable passage of Cicero to the same pur-
pose, in which he says, " that philosophy is content with a
few judges: that it designedly shuns the multitude, and is
by them suspected and disliked: so that if any man should
set himself to vilify all philosophy, he might do it with the
approbation and applause of the people. — Est philosophia
paucis contenta judicibus, multitudinem consult© fugiens,
eique ipsi suspecta et invisa: ut vel siquis universam velit
vituperare, secundo id populo facere possit (^)."

It appears then that the people had little to do with the
philosophers, or the philosophers with the people. Whilst
they could not pretend to any divine authority to enforce
their dictates, their most plausible speculations had little
weight. Whereas if they had come in the name and by the
authority of God himself, and had been able to produce

(d) Concerning this oration of Laelius, and the occasion of it,
which was wholly designed for defending the public antient re-
ligion of the Romans, see Davis's notes on this passage. De
Nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 2. p. 261.

(e) Plato Repub. lib. vi. oper. p. 473. B. Ficin. Lugd. 1590.
(/) Ibid. p. 475. F.

{g) Tuscul. Disput. lib. i. cap. i. p. 126. Edit. Davis, 4to. et
ibid. lib. v. cap. ii. p, 344.

Chap. X. The Philosophers wanted a proper Authority • 233

proper credentials of their Divine mission, this would have
engaged and commanded the attention of the people in a
quite different manner, than their philosophical reasonings,
to which other arguments and reasonings were opposed
by philosophers of great name. What Lactantius saith of
the precepts of the philosophers may be equally applied
to their doctrines. After having observed that the philo-
sophers have many things like to what we are taught in
Scripture, and frequently come near the truth, he adds,
that " these their precepts have no weight, because they are
human, and need a greater authority, even a divine one*
No man therefore believes them, because he that hears
them looks upon him that gives those precepts to be a man
as well as himself — Nihil ponderis habent ista praecepta
quia sunt humana, et auctoritate majori, id est, divina ilia
carent. Nemo igitur credit, quia tam se hominem putat
esse qui audit, quam est ille qui praecipit (A).'* The philo-
sophers themselves were sensible of this: and therefore as
they represent their philosophy to be the gift and invention
of the gods, so sometimes they express themselves as if
they had a mind to be looked upon as inspired persons.
Plato speaking of those whose minds are possessed with an
unfeigned love of philosophy, represents this as proceeding
from a kind of divine inspiration. " E» t/vc^ ^eiei^ IivitvoUs
(?)." And he declares concerning his own discourses, that
they seemed to him to be delivered " not without a kind
of inspiration from the gods.— «x ahv riu^ Wi^ittiti B-im (i)."
He frequently declares, that all wisdom comes from God,
and has many passages which tend to shew the necessity of

(h) Lact. Divin. Instit. lib. ill. cap. 27. p. 330. Edit. var.
Lugd. Bat.

(i) Plato Repub. lib. vi. oper. p. 475. E. Edit.Lugd,
(k) Ibid, p, 636. G.

Vol. I. 2 G

234 The Philosophers wanted a proper Authority, Part I,

a divine instruction. Celsus is for sending men to the poets,
wise men, and philosophers, as inspired by a divine afflatus:
and particularly he mentions Orpheus as a man confessedly
or without doubt cfio^^oyufciva^, inspired by a holy spirit (/) ;
though, as Origen observes, Orpheus wrote more impious
fables concerning the gods than Homer himself. The latter
Platonists and Pythagoreans, after Christianity appeared,
pretended to frequent impulses, revelations, inspirat-ions,
and divine communications, which proceeded from a con-
viction that philosophy, as it signifies true wisdom, or the
knowledge of divine things, ought to proceed from God,
in order to its having a proper authority on the minds of
men: but as they were not able to produce solid proofs of
their divine mission, their philosophy and pretences fell
together: whilst the Christian religion, which in reality
had its original from heaven, though destitute of all world-
ly advantages, yet being attended with the most convin-
cing evidences of a divine authority, eifected that which
philosophy could never have accomplished, in subverting
that system of Pagan polytheism and idolatry, which had
the prescription of many ages to plead, and which seemed
so firmly established, that no merely human wisdom or
power was able to overturn it.

(/) Origen. cent. Cels. lib. vii. p. 359, et ibid. p. 267.

235

CHAPTER XI.

The afFeeted obscurity of the Pagan philosophers another cause which rendered
them unfit to instruct the people in religion. Instead of clearly explaining their
sentiments on the most important subjects, they carefully concealed them
from the vulgar. To which it may be added, thai some of them used their ut-
most efforts to destroy all certainty and evidence, and to unsettle men's minds
as to the belief of the fundamental principles of all religion: and even the best
and greatest of them acknowledged the darkness and uncertainty they were
under, especially in divine matters.

Another observation which is proper to be made con-
cerning the antient philosophers is, that some of the most
eminent amongst them, in discoursing of the principles of
their philosophy, especially when they treated of religion
and divine things, involved their sentiments in great obscu-
rity, and were so far from intending them for general use,
that they carefully concealed them from the people.

The Egyptians, whose wisdom was so much admired and
celebrated among the antients, were particularly remarkable
for this. They had, besides their popular theology, another
which they kept secret, and only communicated to a few
select persons, whom they thought fit to be intrusted with
it. Clement of Alexandria, who himself lived in Egypt,
observes, that " the Egyptians did not expose their reli-
gious mysteries promiscuously to all; nor did they commu-
nicate the knowledge of divine things to the people, but to
those only who were to succeed to the kingdom, and to
those of the priests whom they judged best qualified for it
by their birth and extraction, by their education and their
learning (m)." Plutarch says the same thing in his treatise

(m) Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. v. p. 670. Edit. Potter.

236 The Philosophers endeavoured to conceal Part I,

De Isid. et Osir. (ji) where he also observes, that they were
wont to place sphynxes before their temples, to signify that
their theology had an aenigmatical meaning in it. And Ori-
gen informs us, that not only the Egyptians, but the Per-
sians, Syrians, Indians, and other nations, had a secret
theology distinct from the common, and known only to
their wise men; whilst the " l^tdrxt — the vulgar and unlearn-
ed," hearing only certain fables which they knew not^ the
meaning of, looked no farther than the outward symbols (o)>
As to the Greeks, Orpheus and the eldest poets and philo-
sophers, who derived much of their learning and philosophy
from Egypt, did also, like the Egyptians, wrap up their
doctrines of divine things in fables; whereby they came in
time to be lost, or greatly depraved. Pythagoras to fables
substituted numbers and obscure symbols, which were ex-
plained only to his disciples, and not to them till after a
tedious preparation. Nor was the meaning of them long

(n) Plut. Oper. torn. ii. p. 354.

(o) Orig. cont. Cels. lib. i. p. 11. We are told also, that the
antient Chinese philosophers, who were' the founders of the sect
of the learned, had their symbols and hieroglyphics; and that the
books which contain the speculative part of the Chinese doctrine
are full of those symbols, and treat of the mysteries, and efficient
causes of numbers. It is also observed concerning the three prin-
cipal sects of China, that they have two several sorts of doc-
trines; one private, which they look upon as true, and is only
understood by the learned, and professed by them under the veil
of symbols and figures; the other vulgar and popular, which by
their learned men is looked upon as false in the superficial sound
of the words. This they make use of for government, and in
their civil worship, for inclining the people to good, and deter-
ring them from evil. See F. Longobardi's treatise in Navarette's
Account of the empire of China, in Churchill's Collection of
Travels, &c. vol. i. p. 174.

Chap. XL their sentiments from the People, 237

preserved and understood even among those of his own
sect. A remarkable instance of which we have in the differ-
ent explications given by them of the Tetractys, on which
they, after Pythagoras, laid so great a stress. Concerning
which see Burnet's Archseolog. lib. i. cap. 11. where he
gives a long catalogue of antients and moderns, who were
divided about the meaning of the Tetractys. And certain it
is, that a great obscurity reigned all along in the Pythagoric
school. Socrates was the first among the philosophers, and
almost the only one, who used a plain and familiar manner
of instruction. But then he treated chiefly of things of a
moral and civil nature, and meddled very little with the
speculations of the philosophers about the gods, and the na-
ture of things; but declined and discouraged such enquiries.
Xenophon in an epistle to ^schines, cited by Eusebius,
blames those who, quitting the plain and simple philosophy
of Socrates, were in love with Egypt, and the rt^urw^ni a-ccpiu)
the portentous zuisdom of Pythagoras. This, as Eusebius
observes, was intended against Plato (/>). And indeed the
greatest admirers of that famous philosopher must own that
he is often obscure, and treats his subject, especially when
he is discoursing on divine things, in a manner no way
adapted to the capacity of the people. Hence the ridicule
cast upon him by the comic poet Amphys, mentioned by
Laertius. " The good whatever it is that you expect to get
from this, I understand less than Plato's good (^)." And
the reason is given by Alcinous, in his account of Plato's
philosophy, chap. 27. "That which is worthy of honour,
such as the Supreme Good, he [Plato] conceived not easy
to be found, and if found not safe to be declared (r)." Or,

(fi) Praepar. Evangel, lib. xiv. cap. 12. p. 745.

(q) Diog. Laert. lib. iii. segm. 27.

(r) See Stanley's History of Philosophy, p. 192.

238 The Christian Revelatmi Part I.

as Plato himself expresses it, " th /^h »» sroojTiv >^ Trxri^x rsSe
TSflravTd? lygsTv to l^yovy f^ tv^otrx its ^eivTXi a^wvasTay Asys^v («).—

It is a difficult matter to find out the Maker and Parent of
the universe, and when you have found him to declare him
to all is impossible." Or, as Cicero gives the sense, " to de-
clare him to the vulgar is unlawful. — Indicare in vulgus
nefas." Ficinus, in his argument on Plato's seventh book
of laws, taking notice of Plato's saying, that the things he
had said hitherto seemed to him to be like poetry, and not
without a kind of inspiration from the gods, observes upon
it, that " by this he signifies, that all his writings to that
time, that is, to his old age, were in some sort divinely in-
spired, and disposed in a poetical figurative manner, and
for the most part to be explained allegorically. And there-
fore in his epistles he says, that his true meaning was com-
prehended by none, or by a very few, and that with diffi-
culty, by a kind of prophetic sagacity. — In his significat
omnia ejus scripta in eam usque diem, id est senium, esse
quodammodo divinitus inspirata, atque poetica figura dis-
posita, ut sint allegorice plurimum exponenda. Ob id, in
epistolis ait mentem suam vel a nuUo, vel a quam paucissi-
mis, et vix tandem ex quadam vaticinii sagacitate posse
comprehendi (^)." Ficinus probably had an eye to a passage
in Plato's epistle to Dion's friends, in which he says, that
none of those who thought they knew the things which
\yere the subjects of his meditations rightly understood
them: nor had he ever written, nor would write of them, so
as to explain them clearly to others: and that if it had
seemed to him proper to explain them in word or writing
to the vulgar, he could not have done a more excellent
thing in life than to produce to the public what was useful

(s) Plat. Oper. p. 526. F. Edit. Lugd.
(0 Ibid. p. 836, 837.

Chap. XL designed for the Benefit of all 339

to mankind, and to bring nature into a clear and open light:
but that he thought the attempting to publish these things
would not be of use to men, a very few excepted, who are
able of themselves to find out and improve the hints which
are given them (w). These things which he did not think
fit to explain, related probably to his sublime speculations
concerning the Supreme God, the chiefest Good. And I
think from the account Plato himself gives of his own wri-
tings, we cannot well be sure at this distance that we hit
upon his true meaning, and therefore ought not to lay any
great stress upon what we imagine to be his notions. Ori-
gen, who had a great esteem for Plato, observes, that very
few profited by his beautiful and accurate discourses, and
that his works were only in the hands of the learned (at).
The latter Platonists and Pythagoreans, Plotinus, lambli-
chus, Proclus, and others, affect a mystical theology: and
though there are excellent things in their writings, they are
no way accommodated to the use of the people. Now what-
ever was the cause of this obscurity in some of the most
eminent Pagan philosophers, whether it was owing to their
not having had just and clear ideas themselves of these
matters, or to a fear of their being accounted enemies to
the popular religion, or to their being of opinion that the
people were not fitted to receive these discoveries, but
would make a wrong use of them; to which soever of these
causes this obscurity was owing (and it is not improbable
that all these causes contributed to it) it shews they were
not well qualified to lead the people into the right know-
ledge of religion, nor could their instructions be of general
use. But it is the great advantage and glory of the Christian
revelation, that as it was designed to promote the salvation

(w) Plato Oper. p. 719. A. B.

(x) Orig. cont, Celsum, lib. vi. in initio, p. 275.

S40 The Christian Revelation Part I.

of all, so it was published clearly and openly to the people,
that it might be of universal benefit, for instructing men in
the right knowledge of God and religion. Some learned and
ingenious persons have indeed endeavoured to apologize
for Plato and the other philosophers, who kept their doc-
trines secret from the people, by observing, that the Divine
Author of our religion made the same distinction among his
hearers, and spoke darkly to the people in parables (t/),-what
he afterwards explained fully to his disciples, Mark iv. 34.
But it should be considered, that the parables there referred
to, particularly relate to the different reception his Gospel
would meet with among those to whom it should be pub-
lished, the progress it would make in the world, and other
things of that kind, which it was not as yet proper openly
to declare. He therefore explained them privately to his
disciples, with an intention however that they should pub-
lish them in the fittest season. And accordingly at that very
time he said to his disciples, that their " candle" was not
to be " put under a bushel, but in a candlestick," that it
might give light to all. " For there is nothing hid which
shall not be manifested: neither was any thing secret, but
that it should come abroad*" Mark iv. 21, 22. Or, as he
elsewhere expresseth it, " there is nothing covered that shall
not be revealed, and hid that shall not been known. What I
tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light, and what ye
hear in the ear, that speak ye upon the house tops." Matt. x.
26, 27. Those very parables, with his exposition of them,
were afterwards published to the world. And he commis-
sioned his apostles to " go into all the world," and " preach
the gospel to every creature;" or, as it is elsewhere express-
ed, " to disciple all nations, teaching them to observe all

(y) See Geddes's Essay on the Composition of the Antients,
p. 176, 177.

Chap. XI. designed for the benefit of atL 241

things whatsoever he had commanded them (2)." What St<
Paul saith of himself was true of all the apostles, when he
tells those among whom he preached^ that he " had not
shunned to declare unto them all the counsel of God («)."
Accordingly the people were every where openly instructed
in the knowledge of the only true God, his glorious attri-
butes and perfections^ the worship due to him, the vanity
of polytheism and idolatry, the creation of the world, the
methods of our redemption by Jesus Christ, the gracious
terms of the new covenant, and its exceeding great and pre-
cious promises, the extent of the duty required of us in the
divine law, the resurrection of the dead, a future judgment,
and the rewards and punishments of the world to come*
Hence it was that, as is frequently observed by the antient
Christian writers, many even of the common Christians, who
were strangers to learning and philosophy, knew more of
these things, points of the highest importance to mankind^
than the wise men and philosophers among the Pagans*

This leads me a third consideration, which shews, that
the philosophers were not well fitted to instruct mankind
in the right knowledge of God and religion: and that is,
the darkness and uncertainty they were under in matters of
the greatest consequence: and that it appears from their*
own acknowledgments, that they had nothing to offer,
especially in relation to divine things, which could be safe=*
ly depended upon.

It is well known, that some of the most subtil of the
antient philosophers absolutely denied all certainty and evi-
dence. In consequence of this they set themselves, with
all the force of their wit and reason, to weaken and shake
the main principles of all religion, and even to invalidate

(z) Mark xvi. 15. Matt, xxviii. SO.
(c) Acts XX. 27.
Vol, I, 2 H

242 The Sceptics and Academics endeavoured ta Part L

the proofs of the existence of God: though for their own
safety they professed a great regard for the public religion,
and the legal and popular deities. Such were the several
kinds of Sceptics, of whom the Pyrrhonians were the most
eminent. And not very different from these were those of
the New Academy, which was formed by Arcesilas, far-
ther improved by Carneades, and supported with great
learning and eloquence by Cicero. Though the Acade-
mics held, that some things were more probable than
others, in which they differed from the Pyrrhonians, who
held that all things are alike doubtful and indifferent, yet
they denied that there is any thing which can be certainly
known or understood, and that therefore we ought not to
affirm any thing, but always to withhold our assent (V),

(A) A celebrated author, in his Life of Cicero, gives it as his
opinion, that there was a real difference between the New Aca-
demy and the Sceptics. That the latter maintained a perfect
neutrality towards all opinions as equally uncertain: But the
Academics admitted a probable in things, though they denied
that a certainty was to be attained to. He cites a passage from
Cicero De Nat. Deor. lib. i- cap. 5 where he says, " There are
many things probable, which, though not perfectly compre-
hended, yet on account of their specious appearance are suffi-
cient to govern the life of a. wise man. — Multa esse probabilia
quse quanquam non perciperentur, tamen quia visum haberent
quendam ins'.gnem et inlustrem, his sapientis vita regeretur."
And again in the fourth book of his Academic Questions, cap.
3. he saith, " We have many probabilities which we readily em-
brace, but dare not affirm. — Nos probabilia multa habemus,
quae sequi facile, affirmare vix possumus*.'* Yet in the words
immediately preceding the former of these passages, Cicero
gives it as the opinion of the Academics, that " all truths have
some falsehoods adjoined to them, so very like, that there is no
certain mark to determine our judgment or assent. — Omnibus
veris falsa quaedam adjuncta esse, tant^ similitudine, ut in is

* Middleton's Life of Cicero, vol. ii. p. 599, 600. Dubl. Edit.

Chap. XI. destroy all Certainty and Evidence. 243

Epictetus justly exposes the philosophy and manner of rea-
soning of the Sceptics and Academics, as not only absurd
and ridiculous, but of pernicious consequence to religion
and good manners; and represents them as the most incor-
rigible of all men, and the most unfit to be reasoned
with (c).

But it may not be improper to observe on this occasion,
that besides the professed Sceptics and the Academics,
there were many others of the philosophers who made loud
complaints of the uncertainty of human knowledge. Seneca
in his 88th epistle produces a long catalogue of the antients,
who said that nothing was to be known. And the learned
Gataker has collected many testimonies to this purpose in
his Annotations on Marcus Antoninus, p. 198, et seq.
It was a celebrated saying of Socrates, '^ that he knew this
only, that he knew nothing." Cicero observes at the lat-
ter end of his first book of Academic Questions, that the
obscurity of things had brought Socrates to a confession of
his ignorance, as also Democritus, Anaxagoras, Empedo-
cles, and almost all the antients: " omnes paene veteres (fi^).*'
And in his second book of Academic Questions he saith,
that " all knowledge is obstructed and encumbered with

nulla insit certa judicandi et adsentiendi nota:'* which seems to
me to come in effect to the sceptical principle. The present
learned Bishop of Gloucester has offered several reasons to shew,
that the Middle and New Academy were in reality the same,
and that they both were as real Sceptics, as that sect which was
so denominated. For though they pretended their end was to
find the probable, they were for keeping the mind in an eternal
suspense, and continued going on, disputing against every thing,
without ever finding the probable to determine their judgments.
See Div. Leg:, of Moses, &c. vol. ii. p. 117, 118. 4th Edit.

(d) Academ. Quest, lib. 1. cap. 13.

244 The Sceptics and Academics endeavoured to Part I.

many difficulties, and that there is that obscurity in the
things themselves, and that weakness in our own judg-
ments, that it was not without reason that the most
learned men, and those of the greatest antiquity, despaired
of being able to find out that which they desired to know.
Omnis cognitio multis est obstructa difficultatibus, eaque
in est, et in ipsis rebus obscuritas, et in judiciis nostris in-
firmitas, ut non sine causa, et doctissimi et antiquissimi in-
venire se posse quod cuperent, diffisi sint (^)."

Especially there were many of them that acknowledged
their ignorance in divine matters. Melissus the Samian, a
disciple of P^rmenides, who was much honoured and ad-
mired by his countrymen, said, as Laertius informs us,
that " we ought not to assert any thing concerning the
gods; for we have no knowledge of them (/^)." Plato
himself has many things concerning the imperfection and
uncertainty of human knowledge in divine matters. In
his Epinomis, speaking of the things relating to religion
and the worship of the gods, he saith, ^' that it is not possi-
ble for mortal nature to know any thing certain concerning
such things as these. — aa-Tsn^ »5' op "^vyttrh g<Sgva« TO S-KijT^ (piffit
vav rcnirav ve^i (^)." To the same purpose in his fourth Re-
public, he saith, " these are things we do not know:" and
therefore he advises to have recourse to the patron god, as
the proper instructor and guide (/z). In his famous allegory
of the philosophic cave, he supposes that at present men
are as it were bound down with fetters in a subterraneous
cave, with their backs to the light, and unable to turn their
heads towards it: and that till these fetters are loosed and

(e) Academ. Quest, lib. iv. cap. 3.

(/) Laert. lib. ix. segm. 24.

(g-) Plato Oper. p. 702. E. Edit. Lugd. 1590,

(A) Ibid. p. 448. B. C.

Chap. XI. destroy all Certainty and Evidence, 24^

removed, they are hindered from discerning the truth and
substance of things, and only see the phantoms and shadows
of them, which they conceive to be the things themselves:
but cannot raise their contemplations to the To'e»and ro
uytt^h, that which really is, or that which is good itself, (i).
Aristotle disapproved and argued strongly against those
who pretended that we cannot know or be certain of any
thing. He said, he could not think, that what they called
philosophy ought to have that name given it, since it took
away the very principles of philosophizing (k). Yet he
makes this remarkable acknowledgment, that " as the eyes
of bats are to the brightness of the day-light, so also is the
understanding of our souls towards those things which are
by nature the most manifest of all. — aa-^i^ yx^ xxi t« r&v

TiVKTi^ioav 'ofAfcurei w^o? to cpiyyog i^u to kccB-' ijfAZpeiv. ^ruq Ktti tw

The Stoics were of all the philosophers those who
made the highest pretensions to certainty and evidence,
and were the constant opposers of the Academics. They
would not allow any doubtfulness of opinion in their wise
man, but that he had a clear and certain comprehension of
things: yet they could not help sometimes talking in a dif-
ferent strain. Marcus Antoninus, though a strict Stoic, ob-
serves, that ** the natures of things are so covered up from
us, that to many philosophers, and those no mean ones,
all things seem uncertain and incomprehensible." He adds,
that " the Stoics themselves own it to be very difficult to
comprehend any thing certainly. All our judgments are fal-
lible." So it is in the Glasgow translation of Antoninus. In

(0 See the Tth book of his Republic, in the beginning.
(k) Arist. de Philos. lib. viii. ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. lib. xiv.
cap. 18. p. 763.
(J) Arist. Metaphys. lib. ii. cap. 1.

246 The Greek Philosophy caused doubts* Part I,

the original it runs thus, " Ttoi^sc « ^utTt^x a-vyxxruB-iv^ furei^'
1a»t»;" which Gataker renders, " omnis assenus noster est
labilis et mutabilis. — Every assent of ours is liable to mis-
take and change (w)." Diodorus Siculus charges the Greek
philosophy in general as leading men into perpetual doubts.
He observes, that they were continually innovating in the
most considerable doctrines, and by perpetually contradict-
ing one another made their disciples dubious; so that their
minds, as long as they lived, were in suspense, neither
could they firmly believe any thing («). It may therefore
be affirmed, that philosophy, especially as it was managed
among the Greeks, tended rather to unsettle men's notions
in religion, and to unhinge some of the main principles
conveyed by antient tradition, than to set the people
right, and rectify their errors in the most important points
of religious faith and practice. This observation shows
how little the philosophers were to be depended upon:
since some of the greatest and best of them confessed oti
several occasions, that they had not any thing certain to
oiFer for the instruction of mankind, especially in things re-
lating to religion and the deity. But since at other times
they highly extolled philosophy as the best guide to lead
men into the knowledge of things human and divine, it will
be proper distinctly to examine the truth and justice of
their pretensions.

(m) Marc Anton, lib. v. s. 10.

(n) Stanley's Hist. Philos. p. 1034. Edit. 2d.

24r

CHAPTER XiL

The fourth general consideration. The philosophers unfit to instruct the people
in religion, because they themselves were for the most part very wrong in
their own notions of the Divinity. They were the great corruptei's of the an-
tient tradition relating to the one true (lod and the creation of the world.
Many of those whe professed to search into the origin of the world, and the
formation of things, endeavoured to account for it without the interposition of
a Deity. The ©pinions of those philosophers who were of a nobler kind consi-
dered. It is shewn, that they were chargeable with great defects, and no way-
proper to reclaim the nations from their idolatry and polytheism.

1 HE considerations which have been already offered tend
to shew how little was to be expected from the philoso-
phers, for instructing the people in a right knowledge of
God and religion. But this will still more convincingly
appear, if we consider what wrong notions they themselves
entertained of the Deity, and the confusion and absurdity
of their opinions, even with respect to this most important
article of all religion. Justin Martyr informs us, that when
the Pagans were pressed with the fables of the poets con-
cerning the gods, they were wont to allege their wise men
and philosophers, and had recourse to them as a strong wall
or b'ulwark; though he observes, that the opinions of the
philosophers were more ridiculous than even the theology
of the poets. And indeed there were many of them to whom
this censure might justly be applied.

Cicero, than whom no man was better acquainted with
the tenets of the antient philosophers, or an abler judge of
them, and who was himself, as appears from the passages
above produced from him, a great admirer of philosophy,
hath written a celebrated treatise concerning the nature of
the gods. He begins with observing the great importance
of the question, and that it was necessary to the right order-

248 The Philosophers divided in their Opinions Part I*

ing of religion, " ad moderandam religionem necessaria;"
and then immediately takes notice of the prodigious diver-
sity of sentiments among the most learned philosophers on
this subject, which, he says, were so many and various, that
it was no easy matter to enumerate them. And the account
he gives of them is such, as we, who have had the advan-
tage of clearer discoveries of the Deity by the light of Di-
vine Revelation, cannot read without concern and astonish-
ment. Nor can any thing, in my opinion, exhibit a more
melancholy proof of the weakness of human reason, when
left to itself, and trusting to its own force in matters of
religion. He gives a long list of the most celebrated
names in the Pagan world, especially among the Greek phi-
losophers, men who were most admired for the depth of
their learning, or for the fineness of their genius (o). I shall
not enter into a detail of their sentiments, for which I refer
to the book itself, which is generally known. He does not
propose to speak of those who said there were no gods, as
Diagoras Melius and Theodorus Cyrenaicus; or who
doubted whether they were any, as Protagoras. All those
whom he mentions professed to acknowledge a god or gods
of one kind or another^ but as to the nature of the deity or
deities, there was a strange confusion and diversity in their
notions. And almost all of them were such as every rational
deist in our days, who declares himself an admirer of natu-
ral religion, will readily pronounce to be absurd and con-
trary to reason.

(o) He mentions Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Ale-
maeon Crotoniates, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Em-
pedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Diogenes Apolloniata, An-
tistlienes, Xenocrates, Heraclides Ponticus, Strato, Plata^
Xenophon, Speusippus, Aristotle, Theophrastus, 2^no, Chry-
«ippu8.

Chap. XII. about the Nature of Gods* 249

The antient philosophers may be distributed into two
principal ranks or classes. The one is, of those who ex-
cluded a Divine mind or understanding from any concern
in the formation of the universe. The other is, of those who
attributed the frame and order of things to a most wise,
powerful, and benign Cause and Author.

Among the former may be reckoned most of those who
first applied themselves to the study of philosophy in
Greece, and to search into the nature of things. Aristotle
expressly tells us, that most of those who first philosophiz-
ed *' Tffl V TF^aroii (ptXoa-o(piia-xrT-6i)v ot srAws-o*— seeing the substaucc
of matter to remain always the same, and that it was altered
only in its qualities, made matter to be the only principle,
or the first cause of all things that exist (j&)." And the same
opinion he charges upon those who first theologized, and
whom he calls the most antient of all, who made Ocean and
Thetis to be the first authors or fathers of the generation of
things (5'). The tradition, that the world was formed by God
out of a chaos, was of the highest antiquity, derived from the
first ages, and was probably communicated by original reve-
lation to the first parents of the human race. It is not only
preserved in the writings of Moses, but, as was hinted before,
had spread generally through the nations. The Pagan phi-
losophers and theologues were among the first that corrupt-
ed and perverted this antient tradition, by endeavouring to
account for the origination of all things out of a chaos with-
out any intelligent cause. Eusebius cites some passages out
of a book of Plutarch, which he calls his Stromata, to shew
the various opinions of the antient Greek philosophers,

(ft) Arist. Metaphys. lib. i. cap. 3. Oper. torn. ii. p. 842. Edit.
Paris 1629.

(g) Arist. Metaphys. ubi supra, p. a43.

Vol. I. 2 1

330 The most antient Greek Philosophers held Part I.

called Physici, or natural philosophers, concerning the ori-
gin and composition of the universe. He takes notice par-
ticularly of Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Par-
menides, Metrodorus Chius, Empedocles, Democritus,
Epicurus, Diogenes ApoUonlata; and observes, that they
who were accounted the most eminent of those whom the
Greeks called natural philosophers, in their disquisitions
concerning the constitution of things, and the cosmogonia
or generation and production of the world, did not suppose
any wise author or architect of the whole; nor did they make
the least mention of God in it (r). The most antient philo-
sophers were very fond of enquiring into the origin of the
universe, and the first causes and principles of things; and
trusting to the force of their own genius, they attempted,
as if they had been so many makers of worlds, to form
schemes of their own, concerning the formation of things;
and, dropping God out of the account, valued themselves
upon shewing how the world might be made without him*
But as a just judgment upon them, and to the disgrace of
human reason, they run into hypotheses so absurd and ex-
travagant, that we are ready to wonder how they could
enter into the head of any man of sense. How rare a thing
it had been among the antient Greek philosophers to intro-
duce an intelligent mind, in accounting for the origin and
order of the universe, appears from the great joy Socrates
expressed, when he heard that Anaxagoras had writ a
book in which he declared, that an understanding mind is
the cause of all things, and the author of that beautiful
order that is to be observed in them. He speaks of it as a
kind of new discovery, which he had not met with in the
books of other philosophers; though he complains of his

(r) Euseb. Praepar. Evangel, lib. i. cap. 8. p. 22, et seq.

Chap. XII. Matter to he the first Principle* t5l

disappointment, when he found that philosopher did
not apply this notion, as he expected he would have done,
to the accounting for the particular phenomena of na-
ture.

Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus have been parti-
cularly taken notice of for their absurd schemes concerning
the formation of the world by a fortuitous concourse of
atoms. But the schemes of many others of the antient phi-
losophers were really no less absurd, in endeavouring to ac-
count for the origin of things without the interposition and
contrivance of an infinite understanding mind. And yet
they all of them professed to acknowledge a god or gods [s)\
for the people would not have endured them if they had
absolutely denied a Deity. Epicurus himself asserted, that
there are gods, and pretended to argue from the innate ideas
of the gods implanted in the minds of all men {t). And
here by the way we may observe the great ignorance of the
Athenians, the most learned and polite people of Greece,
in matters of religion. They shewed no public marks of
resentment against the authors and abetters of schemes
which were really atheistical, and which by excluding God
from the creation or government of the world tended to
subvert the foundation of all religion, and yet banished

(s) Those of them who made matter the only first principle,
fnade a shew of maintaining one first cause, one eternal and ne-
cessarily existent principle} which they called God. But then
they subdived this into particular deities. Thus Anaximander
and Anaximenes, who held an infinite matter to be the principle
from which all things flow, and into which all things return, held
innumerable gods and worlds, successively rising and falling.*

{t) See what Vellcius the Epicurean says to this purpose, ap.
Cic. De nat. Deor. lib. i. c. 17.

* Cic De nat. Deor. lib. i. c. 10. Plut. De Placit. lib.i. c. 3.

252 Atheistical Schemes of Philosophy among' the Part I.

Anaxagoras, and put Socrates to death, both of whom
taught that the world was formed by a wise and understand-
ing mind, because they suspected them to have no great
regard for the popular deities. And that the atheistical
schemes advanced by many of the philosophers had a very
bad effect, and made no small progress among the people,
appears from what Plato says in the beginning of his tenth
book of laws, where he complains, that there were many,
especially of the younger sort, who maintained, that " the
heavens, the animals, plants, and all things were pro-
duced, not by understanding, nor by any god, nor by art or
skill, but by nature and fortune — (pv(^u ««/ Ty;cs," i, e. by an
unintelligent nature and chance: and that, " these sort of
speeches were spread in a manner universally among all
men.— — Kfl6T80"23"«<g(U£>'o< CI reiccvToi Xoyoi g» ro7e TFua-tv^ cog ivog U9re79y
avB-^UTraig fw)." This was before the days of Epicurus; and it
is well known that his numerous sect, which openly avowed
that doctrine, made a great progress both among the
Greeks and Romans.

Diodorus Siculus, giving an account of the sentiments of
the antients, especially of the antient Egyptians, concerning
the origin of things, takes no notice of the Deity as having
any concern in it (x). Laertius tells us from Manetho and
Hecataeus, that the Egyptians held matter to be the princi-
ple of things (2/). And Porphyry in his letter to Anebo, an
Egyptian priest, as cited by Eusebius, observes, that Chae-
remon, and others of the learned Egyptians, acknowledged
no other gods than the stars, and the sun, whom they af-
firmed to be the demiurgus or architect of the world, and that

(w) Plat, de Leg. lib. x. Oper. p. 666. B. Edit. Lugd.
(x) Diod. Sic. lib. i. p. 6, 7. et Euseb.Praepar. Evangel, lib.
cap. 7.

(y) Laert, in Prooem. segm. 10.

Chap. XII, Philosophy of the learned Sect in Egypt. 253

they applied the stories of Isis and Osiris, and other sacred
fables, to the course of the sun, the motions and aspects of
the stars, their risings and settings, to the river Nile, and
other natural and inanimate things, and made no mention of
any living or incorporeal natures or essences; and that they
made even those things which are in the power of our own
wills to depend on the motion of the stars, binding all things
in the inevitable chains of necessity. Eusebius remarks upon
this occasion, that even in the arcane theology of the Egyp-
tians, no other but the stars of heaven, wandering and fixed,
were placed by them in the number of their gods. And that
they did not acknowledge any incorporeal maker or archi-
tect of the universe, nor attribute the forming or ordering
of it to any reason or wisdom which effected it, or to any
intelligent natures which do not fall under the senses, but
only to the visible sun. And that therefore they made all
things depend upon the necessity of fate, and the motions
and influences of the stars: which opinion, Eusebius saith,
prevailed among them in his time (2). Dr. Cudworth in-
deed sharply blames Eusebius for passing so severe a cen-
sure on the Egyptian theology, and for pushing his charge
against the Heathens in this and other instances with too
much rigour. But all that the testimonies produced by
the learned Doctor prove, is only that this was not the uni-
versal doctrine of all the Egyptian wise men. But that
many of their learned men and philosophers were of these
sentiments the passage quoted from Porphyry sufficiently
shews. And Eusebius seems to assert, as from his own
knowledge, that it continued to be a prevailing doctrine
among them when he wrote. Nor is lamblicus, upon
whose testimony Dr. Cudworth seems chiefly to rely, much

(2) Praepar. Evangel, lib. iii, cap. 4. p. 92, 93. et ibid. cap. 13.
p. 119. A.

2o4 Opinions of the Chinese Philosophers. Part I.

to be depended upon in the account he gives of the
Egyptian theology, which, by this learned writer's own
acknowledgment, he takes pains in several instances to dis-
guise,

I would observe by the way, that the account which the
learned Chinese give of the origination of things, is no less
absurd than that of those antient Greek and Egyptian phi-
losophers. They say there must of necessity be a first xause
or principle of all things: which they call Li and Tai-kie,
the reason and ground of all nature. And that this first
cause is an infinite being, incorruptible, pure, subtile, with-
out bodily shape, and without beginning or end. If we
were to judge merely by these epithets of the first cause,
we might be apt to entertain a very favourable opinion of
their philosophy. But they also suppose this first cause to
be void of life, intelligence, and liberty {a). They are very

(a) Mr. De Voltaire in his Histoire Universelle, as I find him
quoted by the Abbe Ganchet, Lettres Criiiques, torn. iv. lettre
36, praises the Literati of China; for that, *' leaving the super-
stitions as a grosser food to the people, the magistrates and men
of letters are nourished by a purer substance.** What the pure
religion of the Chinese Literati is, who are so much cried up by
many of those that set up for the patrons of natural religion,
may be clearly seen in the treatise of F. Longobardi here re-
ferred to. He gives an account of several conversations he had
with the most learned Mandarins. That they laughed at the
Christian account of a living intelligent Being, who created and
governeth all things. And particularly he mentions one Li King,
an eminent Doctor and Mandarin, who, when the father mis-
sionaries asserted, that there is one living, immortal, and omni-
potent God, who rewards every man according to his actions,
positively denied there was any such God, or a heaven or hell,
as things never heard of in his [the learned] sect. The same
author declares, that he had conversed with great numbers of
their learned men and Mandarins in several parts of China, dur-

Chap. XII. Concerning the theistical Philosophers, 25 B

particular in their enquiries how all things are produced
out of this universal substance, and what are the several
changes and conversions through which they pass: but they
make the production of the universe to be entirely natural
and accidental, not the effect of an understanding mind and
will. The reader may see a particular account of all this,
confirmed from Chinese books of the greatest authority
among the learned sect, in F. Longobardi's treatise before
referred to, and which is contained in the fifth book of
Navarette's account of the empire of China; and Nava-
rette himself affirms from his own knowledge, that the
learned Chinese are so strongly attached to these notions, that
nothing can persuade them to the contrary. See Navarette's
Account of China in the first volume of Churchill's Collec-
tion of Travels, &c. p. 113, and p. 137, et seq.

It will be easily allowed, that the authors and defenders
of the schemes of philosophy which have been mentioned,
were no way proper to instruct the people in the right
knowledge of God and religion. But it may be said, there
were others of a nobler character. Admirable passages have
been produced from their writings, still extant, concerning
the existence, the perfections, the attributes and providence
of the Deity. They argued from the illustrious characters
of wisdom and design, of goodness and benignity, which
appear in the frame and constitution of the world; that it
did not owe its original to an undesigning chance, or a blind
unintelligent nature, but that there is a most wise and be-
nign and powerful Mind, which formed this universal sys-
tem, and is the Cause of the order and harmony which is
visible in it. Far be it from me to deny these philosophers

ing the many years he resided there, and found that they all
agreed in these notions. See the book above quoted, p. 196, 197?
198.

256 Of Thales. Part I.

their just praises. They certainly deserve to be honourably
distinguished from those who ascribed all to chance or
mere unintelligent matter. I look upon some of them to
have been instruments in the hands of Providence, for put-
ting a check to the progress of atheism, and for preserving
some remains of religion, when by the delusions of a false
and vain philosophy, it was in danger of being extinguished,
among persons pretending to a knowledge and penetration
above the vulgar. Yet upon the most impartial enquiry it
will appear, that the notions of these best of the philoso-
phers, with regard to that great and fundamental article of
all religion, the knowledge and worship of the one true God,
the Creator and Governor of the universe, were in many
instances very defective; and mixed with such dangerous
errors, as rendered them not very fit to be the guides and
instructors of mankind, and to recover the nations from the
idolatry and polytheism into which they were fallen.

I shall take notice of the sentiments of some of the most
celebrated among them.

Thales is said to have been the first that introduced phi-
losophy into Greece: and concerning his sentiments the
learned are not agreed. Aristotle seems to reckon him
among those philosophers who made matter the only prin-
ciple and cause of all things (^). But according to Cicero,
Thales held that all things had their origin from water, but
that God was the mind which out of water fashioned all
things. " Thales Milesius, qui primus de talibus rebus
tjuaesivit, aquam dixit esse initium rerum; deum autem eam
mentem quae ex aqua cuncta fingeret (c)." In this he is fol-
lowed by Municius Felix and Lactantius. But St. Austin,

(b) Arist. Metaphys. lib. i. cap. 3.

Chap. Xlt Of thales. isf

who no doubt was well acquainted with that passage of
Cicero, seems to have paid no great regard to it: for having
observed that Thales made water to be the principle of
things, out of which the world and all things in it had their
existence; he positively ajflirms, that this philosopher did not
suppose a divine mind to have had any efficiency or super-
intendency in the formation of the universe. " Nihil huic
operi quod mundo considerato tarn admirabile aspicimusj,
ex divina mente prseposuit (^)." But if Cicero's account of
Thales's opinion be admitted, it shews that he preserved
the primitive tradition, that God framed the earth out of a
chaos, or mass of fluid matter. Thales might probably have
learned it in the eastern parts to which he travelled: and he
himself is said to have been of Phoenician extraction* Mi-
nucius Felix thinks it was too sublime to be of his own
invention, and that it came originally from a divine revela-
tion or tradition (e). Laertius mentions a saying of Thales,
which if it may be depended upon seems to confirm what
Cicero says of him, viz. " That the world is the fairest or
most beautiful of things, for it is the work of God.—
^okfAcc ya,^ B-eS (/)•" But Plutarch gives it a little otherwise^
and as some think more accurately, thus; that " the world
is the most beautiful of things, for whatsoever is orderly
and fitly proportioned is a part of it (^')-" But whatsoever
may be said of Thales himself, none of those who followed
him in the Ionic school, of which he was the founder, till
the time of Anaxagoras, attributed the formation of the
world to an intelligent mind (^).

(rf) De Civ. Dei, lib. viii. cap. 2. p. 146. Edit. Bened.

(e) Min. Fel. cap. xix. p. 149, 150. Edit. var. Lugd. Bat. 1672,

(/) Laert. lib. i. segm. 35.

(g) In convivio septem sapientum. Oper. torn. ii. p. l53. C.

(h) The learned Dr. Campbell seems not to be well satisfied

Vol. L 3 K

258 Of Pythagoras, Part I.

Pythagoras, who was a little posterior to Thales, was a
philosopher of great name, and the founder of what is call-
ed the Italic school. He has been reckoned among the as-
serters of one God, and an incorporeal mind. Lactantius
says of him, " Pythagoras unum Deum confitetur dicens

with the account given of Thales's opinion in the passage^above
quoted from Cicero. He thinks it probable that Thales assigned
water as the only principle concerned in the formation of the
world: and says, he knows of no philosopher, that single passage
of Cicero excepted, who explains his opinion otherwise. He
also observes, that the passage in Cicero is lame and imperfect,
and consequently very perplexed and obscure. But in this I can-
not agree with that learned author. The words in which Thales's
opinion is represented are very clear and express It is true, that
the following words in which Velleius endeavours to refute that
opinion are very perplexed And it is generally thought that the
place is corrupted. Lamhinus has proposed one emendation, and
Dr. Davies another. This however may be gathered from it, that
Velltfius supposed Thales to have held that mind was some way
joined with the water in order to the production and formation
of things. If the meaning be, that Thales held God to be united
to the watery mass as the soul of the world, it is not improbable
that this was his opinion. And it is what Plutarch seems to intend
when he tells us, that Thales said, " the mind or intelligence of
the world is God." De Placit. lib. i. cap. 7. And this may
help us to account for that noted saying of Thales, that " all
things are full of gods.'* For if he held God to be the soul of the
world, he might look upon particular souls and intelligent be-
ings, as Pythagoras and the Stoics did afterwards, to be portions
of the universal soul; and upon particular parts of the universe,
as animated with this universal soul, to be gods. And thus was a
foundation laid for polytheism, and a multiplicity of deities.
Agreeable to this is the account Stobaeus gives us of Thales's
sentiments, that he held that " the intelligence or mind of the
world is God; and that the world is animated, and full of dae-
mons." Stob. Eclog. Phys. lib. i. cap. 1. Edit. Plantin. See also
to the same purpose, Laert. lib. i. segm. 27.

Chap. XII. Of Pythagoras, 259

incorporalem esse mentem." But he afFectcd so great an
obscurity, that if he had been never so right in his senti-
ments concerning God and divine things, he could have
been of little use to the people. Nor indeed was he to be
depended upon as a safe guide, if he had expressed himself
clearly and intelligibly. In a passage quoted by Clemens
Alex, he asserts God to be the soul of the world, and the
K^eiffti ray oXai9^ the mixture or temperament of the whole (i).
It is generally agreed, that he held God to be a mind uni-
versally diffused, and pervading all nature. But this mind,
though he calls it incorporeal, does not seem to be a pure
spirit, in the strictest and properest sense. For he supposed
the divine substance to be a fine and subtil aether, which ex-
pandeth itself through the universe, and is the cause of all
the order that is in it, and the fountain of life to all beings.
He maintained, according to Laertius, that the sun, moon,
and other stars are full of this ^ethereal substance, or hea-
venly vital heat (ardor cselestis, as Cicero calls it), and are
therefore gods (/^): That the soul is " un-oa-Trxirfttc utB-i^og — a
small part taken from the celestial aether:" And thence he
argued that the soul is immortal, because that out of which
it is discerped is immortal. " ^ AB-eivetrov . itvxi uvriiy [-^^vxitr']
hrii^vive^ ^ TO «4*' ^ afrzaiFctfoii tcB-uvccTcv gV< (/)•" Cicero repre-
sents it as an acknowledged thing, that *' Pythagoras and
the Pythagoreans never made any doubt, that our souls are
taken out of the universal divine mind or soul. — Pythago-
ram Pythagoreosque nunquam dubitasse quin ex universa
mente divina delibatos animos haberemus (m)." And he
elsewhere introduces Velleius arguing, that at that rate

(?) Clem. Alex. Cohort, ad Gentes, p. 62. Edit. Potter.

(k) Laert. lib. viii. segm. 27.

(/) Ibid. segm. 28.

(fn) Cato Major sive De Senect.cap. 21.

^GO Of Anaxagoras, Part I,

** God himself is discerped and torn, when human souls are
plucked off from his substance: and when any of them is

miserable, (which frequently happens) a part of God is
miserable; which cannot be." And he asks, " How should
the human mind be ignorant of any thing, if it were God?"
** Pythagoras, qui censuit animum esse per naturam reruni
omnem intentum et commeantem, ex quo animi nostri car-
perentur, non vidit distractione humanorum animorum
discerpi et dilacerari Deum, et cum miseri animi essent
(quod plerisque contingerit) tum Dei partem esse miseram;
quod fieri non potest. Cur autem quicquam ignoraret ani-
mus hominis, si esset Deus? (;z)" Pythagoras's scheme
plainly led to polytheism, or a plurality of gods: and he
himself was a promoter of it. lamblicus says, Pythagoras
was instructed concerning the worship of the gods, partly
from the Egyptians, partly from the Eleusinian and other
mysteries (o); which (by the way) supposes, that the wor-
ship of a multiplicity of deities, and the ceremonies relating
to them, were taught in the mysteries (/?).

The next I shall mention is Anaxagoras, concerning
whom Cicero observes, that he was the first who asserted,
that " the regular order and motion of all things was
planned out and accomplished by the force and reason of
an infinite mind.— Anaxagoras primus omnium rerum des-
criptionem et motum mensis infinitae vi ac ratione designari
ac confici voluit ($')." This seems to contradict what Cicero
had said of Thales a little before. For if it had been the

(n) De nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 11.

(o) Iambi. Vit. Pythag. sect. 151, 152.

(/^) The learned Dr. Campbell has insisted largely on Pythago-
ras, and his sentiments, and will by no means allow, that he had
a just notion of God the Creator of the universe. Necess. of Re^
vel. from p. 236 to p. 264.

ijj) De nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 11,

Chap. XII, Of Anaxagoras, 261

doctrine of Thales, as he represents it, that a divine mind
was concerned in the formation of all things, how could it
be said, that Anaxagoras, who lived many years after
Thales, was the first that taught this? It must therefore be
allowed, to make Cicero consistent with himself, that he
supposed some difference between the opinion of Thales,
and that of Anaxagoras, concerning this matter. The way
that Dr. Davies takes to account for it in his note on this
passage is, that Thales supposed God to be the soul of the
world mixed and united with matter (and this I have
shewn was probably his opinion); whereas Anaxagoras
held him to be a pure mind, not united to matter, but
free from all corporeal mixture. And indeed it appears
from what Cicero makes Velleius say, when he endeavours
to confute him, that he supposed Anaxagoras to hold that
God was a simple mind, separate from matter, or any cor-
poreal cohcretion, and without any thing joined to it or
mixed with it. This Velleius represents as absolutely
unintelligible; it being a thing which the Epicureans, such
as Velleius was, had no notion of. " Aperta simplexque
mens, nulla re adjuncta, qua sentirc possit, fugere intelli-
gentise nostra vim et notionem videtur." And Aristotle
tells us, that Anaxagoras supposed this mind to be " the
only being that is simple, and unmixed, and pure. — Movcv
t£i> ovlav i^Xvv text tt^tyy^ koh kuB-m^ov (r)." Laertius informs us,
that Anaxagoras asserted '^ vsv ^h ei^x>^v Ktv^Tgag — that mind
is the beginning or principle of motion." And Plutarch
gives his opinion thus, that he said, that " bodies did exist
from the beginning, but the mind or intellect of God
I'educed them into a comely order, and effected the ori-

(r) De Anima, lib. i. cap, ?.

268 Of Anaxagoras, Part I.

gination of all things, or of the universe— t«v oXw («)."
This was accounted so wonderful a discovery, that he had
the name N»$, Mind or Intellect^ given him on the account
of it. And yet it does not appear that in this noblest part
of his philosophy, he had any among the philosophers to
follow him except Socrates and his disciples. Nor did he
himself make a right use and application of this excellent
principle, or direct others to do so, in order to the explain-
ing the particular phenomena of nature, but ascribed
them merely to mechanical and material causes; for which
he is justly censured by Socrates. Aristotle has the same
observation (t). He took no notice of a Divine Agency in
the formation of animals; but endeavoured to account
for it in a manner not unlike that of Epicurus. He sup-
posed animals to have sprung up out of a humid, warm,
and earthly matter, and afterwards to have generated one
another (w).

(5) De Placit. philos. hb. i. cap. 7. Opera, torn, ii, p. 881. A.
Edit. Francof.

(?) Arist. Metaphys. lib. i. cap. 4.

(m) Laert. lib. ii. segm. 9. The learned Dr. Campbell looks
upon this to be a proof that Anaxagoras did not arrive at the
notion of an Infinite Mind merely by an effort of his own rea-
son, in enquiring into the cause and connexion of things. And it
must be owned, that this gives one no very favourable opinion
of his ability in arguing from the works of nature to the ex-
istence and perfections of the Deity. Nor can any man prove
that he had not the first hint of it from antient tradition. Yet on
the other hand it cannot be proved, that it was not possible for
him to have attained to it in the exercise of his own reason.
Human reason will often discover part of a truth and not the
whole, and will argue justly and consequentially in one in-
stance, and very extravagantly in another, relating to the same
subject. Allowing that Anaxagoras was convinced in general,
and that his reason led him to conclude, that a pure and intelli-

Chap. XII. Of Socrates. 263

Socrates comes next to be considered, who was, in se-
veral respects, the best and most excellent of all the philo-
sophers that lived before the coming of our Saviour. Xe-
nophon observes concerning him, that he did not discourse
about the heavens, and how the world had its origin; and
that he greatly blamed the folly and arrogance of those,
who were wont to speculate upon these matters, which he
looked upon to be above the comprehension of human rea-
son; and thought that such disquisitions were not accepta-
ble to the gods. And indeed the philosophers before him,
who had professed to search into the nature and origin of
things, had fallen for the most part into such wild and ex-
travagant hypotheses, and which only tended to lead men
into atheism, that it is not to be wondered at that Socrates
declined and discouraged such enquiries {x). Yet, as was
before observed, he approved the main principle of Anax-
agoras, concerning an Infinite Miod as the cause of the
regular order of things in the universe: though he found

gent mind, and not stupid matter, was the first cause and princi-
ple of motion, and of the orderly disposition of things in the
universe, yet it may well be supposed, that, like the other phi-
losophers of those times, he valued himself upon accounting for
the several particular phaenomena of nature by hypotheses of his
own; and accordingly endeavoured to shew his sagacity by
pointing out to what he judged might be the probable natural
causes of the formation of animals. But his attempts that way
only furnished new proofs of the weakness of human reason,
when trusting merely to its own force in enquiries of this na-
ture. He seems to have had no notion of the wisdom of God so
conspicuous in the human frame, and which the Royal Psalmist
celebrates in that noble and devout strain: " I will praise thee,
for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are thy
works, &c."

{pc) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. cap. i. segm. 11, 12, 13. et
lib. iv. cap. 7. segm. 5, 6.

264 Of Socratess Part I.

fault with him for not making a right application of this
excellent principle.

Let us therefore enquire what use Socrates himself made
of it. And to this purpose I shall produce some passages
out of Xenophon's memorable things of Socrates. For it
is generally agreed that his account of Socrates's senti-
ments is written with greater clearness and simplicity, and
is more to be depended on than that given us by -Plato,
who seems frequently to put his own sentiments upon us
under his master's name.

The conversation of Socrates with Aristodemus is one
of the most valuable things which Pagan antiquity hath
left us. Aristodemus is represented as a man who had lit-
tle regard to religion, and was even apt to turn it into
ridicule. The design of Socrates was to bring him to a
right sense of God and of a Providence, and of the worship
and honour justly due to the Divinity. With this view he
makes some excellent reflections on the admirable fabric
of the human body, the fine disposition of its parts, and
the useful purposes to which they are manifestly designed^
as also on the noble faculties and powers of the human
soul; in order to shew that these things were not made or
constituted by chance, but with wonderful wisdom, as well
as goodness. He mentions the understanding or prudence
that is in the universe, " tIh 'ii vuvn <pgov>jo-<j>," and which or-
dereth all things in the manner that is most agreeable to
it (*). He represents the eye of God as seeing all things at
once, and seems to point to one author of the human
frame, who made men from the beginning, " a 1% et^^'^i -xciut
tti^e^uTcaq (if).''^ And yet it cannot but be observed with con-
cern, that through the whole of that dialogue he generally

(*) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. cap, 4. segm. \*f.
(y) Ibid. segm. 5.

ChAP. XII. Of Socrates^ S65

speaks of the gods in the plural number. He represents the
gods as the authors of the human frame, as exercismg a
constant care over mankind, and ordering all things for our
use and benefit, and as seeing and knowing all things (2).
The conclusion of the dialogue deserves special notice*
" If thou raakest trial," says he, " of the gods, by worship-^
ping them, whether they will give thee counsel concerning
things which are obscure to men, thou shalt know the Di-
vinity ^ that it is so great and of such a nature, that they"
[i. e. the gods] " both see and hear all things, and are
every where present, and take care of all things at once (a).'*
Here he seems to speak in high terms of the Divinity,
TO 3»<ef. And if the words were taken separately. We might
be apt to interpret it of the one true God, and of him
only; but it appears from what goes immediately before
and follows after, that he applies this not to one God only,
but to the gods, and seems to represent the divinity he
speaks of, not as peculiar and appropriate to one^ but that
there is a plurality of gods who are sharers of it, and to
whom the glorious divine characters he mentions belong.
And accordingly Xenophon concludes the account he gives
of the conversation of Socrates with Aristodemus with
this reflection: That " Socrates by saying such things,
endeavoured to engage those he conversed with, not only
to abstain from things impure, unjust, and base, when they*
were seen of men, but even when they were in solitude,

(z) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 4. segm. U, 12, 13, 14^
(c) Ibid. s. 18- TvuTr^ to S"e/ev, or* rovetvrov kxi rdSrav 'iftf, ari*

^iirm 'ivif^ixiiT&M uvrva i* ©• ^«»5) of whom he had spoken jusf
before.

Voi, I, 2 L

26 S Of Socrates <. Part I.

as being persuaded that none of their actions can be con-
cealed from the gods (^)."

The same observation may be made on Socrates's con-
versation with Euthydemus, of which also Xenophon gives
an accomit (c). There is one passage in this dialogue
which deserves to be particularly considered. He advises
Euthydemus not to wait to see the forms of the gods, but
to think it sufficient to behold their works, in order to the
worshipping and honouring them, since it is thus that the
gods manifest themselves to us. " For,'* says he, " both
the other gods, when they bestow good things upon us, do
it in such a manner as not themselves to come into open
view: and he that frameth and containeth the whole world,
in which are all good and beautiful things, and who pre-
serveth it always in a sound and undecaying state for the
benefit of those that use it— is seen to perform the great-
est things; yet whilst he orders and governs all this, is
himself invisible to us («^)." He seems here plainly to
point to a singular being, as distinguished from «< «6AA(m — the
other gods, and describes him by the sublime character of
** 0 Ta» oAov KOTf^av rvvTcirlav rl f^ ^vvi^at^ h » •jrecvret xtf/es f^ tiyuB^k
£><. — He that frameth or putteth in order, and containeth
the whole world, in which are all good and beautiful things."
Yet he elsewhere in his conversation with Aristodemus
uses nearly the same expressions concerning the gods;
that "they have framed or put in order the greatest and
IXiOSt beautiful things.— 3'gSi' ret fiiyt^ec ^ KecXM^u crvvrec^civrvf

(e)." And he there particularly ascribes to them the con-

(b) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. segm. 19.

Chap.XIL Of Socrates. 267

triving and forming the human constitution (/). And the
professed design of the whole discourse with Euthydemus,
of which the noble passage I have been now considering is
a part, is to shew that the gods take care of and continually
do good to men, and therefore ought to be worshipped.
Accordingly he all along sets himself to demonstrate the
great care and goodness of the gods in providing both
for our necessity and convenience, and for our pleasure;
and also in giving us sense, reason, speech, and causing
the heavenly bodies, the earth, seasons, and the various
kinds of animals, to minister to our use and benefit. All
these things he ascribes to the providence of the gods, and
mentions them as instances and proofs of their benevolence
towards mankind. And he concludes this excellent dis-
course with observing, that " we ought to honour the gods
according to our ability, and confidently to hope for the
greatest blessings from them. For no man in his right
senses can expect to receive greater things from others than
from those who have it in their power to do us good in the
greatest instances. Nor can any man hope for this in any
other way but by pleasing them. And how can he please
them better than by obeying them to the utmost of his
power^ (^)" Thus it appears, that if this great man had a
notion, as it is probable he had, of one Divine Being, su-
perior to the other deities, yet he takes little notice of him
as distinguished from the rest. He still seems to have a
plurality of gods in view, whom he recommends upon all
occasions to the esteem, the adoration, and obedience of
mankind: from whom flow all good things, on whose favour
wc continually depend, and whom we are under indis-
pensable obligations to please, to worship, and obey. And

(/) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 4. s. 11, 12.
(§) Ibid. lib. iv. cap. 3. s, 17.

268 Of Plato. Part I.

what has been observed concerning Socrates, may be also
applied to Xenophon, who was a close follower of that
great philosopher.

The celebrated Plato, who was another of Socrates's
disciples, has several passages which seem to contain an
express acknowledgment of one Supreme God. He calls

him in his Timaeus, " o ^«<))t«$ >^ « ^rurvi^ tSSs tS 7r«6»T«5 the

Maker and Father of this universe;" and describes him in
several parts of his works by a variety of most magnificent
epithets: "<» i^i ttSo-* 3-8o$— the God who is over all: tJJ?

^vvioii jtT<Vjj{ the Builder or Framer of nature: vairm

hrtov — the cause of all things:" and represents him as the
*' TO 09 — the Being," by way of eminency, or " that which
exists;" *'to«x«9-ov, — the [chief] good," But these sublime
speculations he thought it neither proper nor safe to com-
municate to the people. Nor does he propose him to them
as the object of their worship. He every where on all
occasions mentions the gods. When he undertakes to prove
the existence of a Diety against the atheists, what he sets
himself to prove is that there are gods: when he argues for
a providence, it is the providence of the gods. And the
gods he principally recommends to the people as the ob-
jects of their worship, their trust and dependence, are hea-
ven and the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon and stars, and
the gods publicly adored, and established by the laws.
This I only mention here, as I shall give full proof of
it in another place (^).

(A) There seems to be a just foundation for the charge which
Velleius in Cicero brings against Plato. Having observed that
Plato says, that the Father of the world cannot be so much as
named, and that God is without body, he adds, " Idem et in
Timaeo dicit, et in legibus, et mundum Deum esse, et caelum,
ct astra, et terram, et animos, et eos quos majorum institutis

Chap. XII. Of Aristotle. 269

The sentiments of the famous Aristotle concerning the
Deity are not very clear or consistent. He blames those
who ascribed the original of motion to chance or fortune,
or mere matter, and asserts one eternal first mover,
whom he calls the Supreme God. He describes him by
noble epithets, as eternal, indivisible, immutable, without all
parts and magnitude, without all body, and not united to
matter. But when we examine more narrowly into his
sentiments, this Supreme God is only the intelligence,
which either as a soul animates, or as a separate form su-
perintends, the uppermost sphere of heaven, which revol-
veth from all eternity in one uniform orbicular motion,
of all others the most perfect: and thence communicates
motion to all other parts of the universe. But then he
holds, that there are several other spheres, everlastingly re-
volving, which have their distinct intelligences animat-
ing or superintending them, each of whom are eternal and
immortal beings, and like the first mover unchangeable,
indivisible, without bodily parts or magnitude. And
therefore they are truly and properly gods, as well as he
that inhabits or superintends the highest sphere. And ac-
cordingly he declares, that these are the gods which antient
tradition teaches; and recommends this as the true origi-
nal theology: and that the other gods, by which he means
the hero deities, were invented afterwards for the purposes
of civil government, and to keep the people in obedience
to the laws (i).

accepimus: quae et per se sunt falsa perspicue, et inter sese
vehementer repugnantia." De nat, Deor. lib. i. cap. 12.
p. 32.

(i) Arist. Metaphys. lib. xiv. cap. 8. Oper. torn. ii. p. 1003.
Edit. Paris 1629. See a fuller account of Aristotle's sentiments,
confirmed by express references to several parts of that philo-

sro Of Cicero, Part I.

If we go from the Greeks to the Romans, who derived
their philosophy from the Greeks, the most eminent of tiiem
was that great man Cicero. And the proper place to look
for his sentiments on this subject, seems to be in his cele-
brated books De natura Deorum; where he treats pro-
fessedly concerning this matter. It is true, that according to
the manner of the New Academy he there disputes on all
sides, without coming to a positive determination. But the
declaration he makes in the conclusion of the whole directs
us to what he thought the most probable opinion. And by
that declaration it appears, that the stoical doctrine concern-
ing God, and which was maintained by Balbus throughout
the second book, was what he most approved. He there
makes Balbus argue with great strength and eloquence
from the beauty and order and wise contrivance of the
works of nature, that they did not owe their original to
chance, or to a fortuitous concourse of atoms. But then
the result of his argument is to prove, that the world, as
animated by an universal soul, is God: and that this soul
as an intellectual fire or ather, pervading the whole uni-
verse, and producing things according to their natures (i).
And he argues also for the divinity of the stars, as animated
by the same universal soul. And this may help us to judge
of the true meaning of several other passages, which have
been often quoted from this justly admired author relating
to the Deity. Nothing is more certain than that he gene-
rally speaks of a plurality of gods, and this even when he
is arguing for the existence of a Deity and a Providence
against the Atheists and Epicureans; and that he was for

sopher*s works, in Dr. Campbeirs Necessity of Revelation, p.
276, et seq.

{k) The doctrine of the Stoics concerning God will be more
particularly considered in the following chapter.

Chap. XII. The Pa^an Philosophy, ^c. 271

encouraging and promoting the worship of the popular divi-
nities established by the laws. But of this I shall have oc-
casion to treat more distinctly afterwards.

From the account which hath been given of the most ex-
cellent of the Pagan philosophers who flourished before our
Saviour's coming it appears, that their schemes of philoso-
phy or theology were not calculated to recover the nations
from that idolatry and polytheism in which they were so
deeply and generally involved. The good things they taught
were mixed with great errors; or if we should suppose
them to have been never so right in their own notions, they
wanted a proper authority to enforce their instructions
upon mankind. Nor can their attainments be justly brought
as a proof of the powers of human nature in matters of reli-
gion, when left merely to itself and its own unassisted force,,
except it can be shewn that the notions they taught were
merely the product of their own enquiries, independently
of all foreign instruction and assistance. But whatever may
be supposed of the possibility of this, yet, as far as we can
judge by the accounts antiquity has left us, this was not
in fact the case. I am very sensible that many are unwilling
to own, that the Heathens, especially their wise men and
philosophers, derived the knowledge they had of God and
of the main principles of natural religion from any other
source than merely the light of their own natural reason
without any help from revelation or tradition. This is what
the learned Dr. Sykes has set himself to shew in his
" Principles and Connexion of Natural and Revealed Re-
ligion," and particularly in the 14th and 15th chapters of
that book, which take up near a third part of the whole.
He thinks, that as those principles are very reasonable in
themselves, men of such great abilities, as they certainly
were, might easily discover them by their own reasonings.
But this seems to me not to be a very just way of arguing
to prove that they actually did so. Many things there arc

272 The Pagan Philosophy not calculated Part t,

which appear to be perfectly agreeable to reason when once
discovered, which yet men left to themselves would not
have actually found out by the mere force of their own
reason, without instruction and assistance (/). If we allow
the Heathens themselves to be proper witnesses in this
matter, it appears from their testimony, that they had a
principal part of their knowledge from tradition and ioreign
helps. The learned Doctor himself is obliged to make ac-
knowledgments which are not very consistent with his
scheme. He owns that Plato, who excelled all the philoso-
phers before Christ's coming in sublime speculations con-
cerning the divinity, " learned from foreigners the grand
principles of his philosophy, and that he himself confesses
it (m)." He says, that " Clement in his Stromata does cer«
tainly prove that the Greek philosophy was principally de-
rived from what they called the Barbarian {n)^ And that
•* Eusebius has truly proved, that the Greeks derived their
knowledge from foreigners." And that this is " proved be-
yond all possible contradiction by authorities unquestion-
able (o)." Yea, he goes so far as to declare, that " it is very
plain that the best and wisest men among the Greeks tra-

(/) See concerning this the introductory Discourse, p. 5, 6,
and the testimonies there produced. I shall here add another
great authority from a celebrated antient, which has been men-
tioned by the learned author of the Divine Legation of Moses.
It is taken from Cicero's 3d book De Oratore, cap. 31. " Nam
neque tarn est acris acies in naturis hominura atque ingeniis,
ut res tantas quisquam nisi monstras possit videre: neque tanta
tamen in rebus obscuritas, ut eas non penitvls acri vir ingenio
cernat, si modo adspexcrit."

(m) Sykes's Principles and Connexion of Nat. and Rev. Reli-
gion, p. 480, 481.

(n) Ibid. p. 479.

(o) Ibid. p. 494, "

Chap. XII. to remoi>e Idolatry. 273

veiled from Greece into Egypt, to get at the knowledge of
the unity, and the like important truths (/>)." This appears
to me to be in effect a giving up the main point he propos-
ed to prove, which was, that the Heathens obtained their
knowledge of God and his perfections, and of the great ar-
ticles of natural religion, merely by the exercise of their
own powers, and the right use they made of their reason,
without the help of revelation or tradition. For if any of
the antient Heathens may be supposed to have attained to
the true knowledge of God and the main principles of na-
tural religion, solely by their own rational enquiries, the
Greeks certainly bid the fairest for it, who were remarkable
for the fineness and penetration of their genius; and yet by
his own acknovvledgraent, they did not attain to it by the
force of their own reasoning, but had it by tradition and
instruction from others: though they might easily find out ar-
guments to support what they had thus received. Our author
seems to be sensible that this is unfavourable to his hypo-
thesis: and therefore he insinuates, that the Egyptians from
whom the Greeks derived their knowledge, "■ had learned
their notions not from any tradition at all, but had by-
search found out those things of themselves (^)." But what
likelihood is there that the Egyptians found them out of
themselves, when he owns that the best and greatest philo-
sophers of Greece, who were much more remarkable for
cultivating the arts of reasoning, did not so? Nor indeed
was this the Egyptian method of philosophizing; they did
not reason out the principles of their theology, but professed
to have derived it from antient tradition, which they kept
as a secret to themselves, and carefullv concealed from the

Qi) Sykes's Principles and Connexion of Nat. and Rev. Reli-
gion, p. 383.
(y) Ibid. p. 496.
Vol. L 2 M

374 The Pagan Philosophy^ ^c. Part I.

people; though they were far from keeping it pure and un-
corrupted. And the higher we mount towards the first ages,
the less probability there is that men found out those prin-
ciples by their own unassisted reason. Afterwards, in the
ages of learning and philosophy, it might have been justly
expected that they would have carried these principles to a
high degree of improvement; but notwithstanding the helps
the philosophers were furnished with, both from antient
tradition and their own rational disquisitions, they were
not to be depended upon as proper guides to mankind in
religion, as has been already shewn, and will farther appear
from what I proceed to offer on this subject.

Chap. XIII. PlntarcWs Opmion of Txvo Prineipks* 275

CHAPTER XIII.

Further proofs of the wrong sentiments of the antient philosophers in relation t©
the Divinity. Platarch's opinion; and which he represents as having been very
general among the antients, concerning two eternal principles, the one good,
the other evil. Those philosophers who taught that the world was formed and
brought into its present order by God, yet held the eternity of matter; and few
if any of them believed God to be the Creator of the world in the proper sense.
Many of them, especially after the time of Aristotle, maintained the eternity
of the world in its present form. It was an established notion among the most
celebrated philosophers, and which spread generally among the learned Pa-
gans, that God is the soul of the world, and that the whole animated system of
the world is God. The pernicious consequence of this notion shewn, and the
use that was madeof it for encouraging and promoting idolatry and polytheism.

1 HE celebrated Plutarch flourished after Christianity-
had made some progress in the world. But no man was
better acquainted with the opinions of the antient Pagan
Philosophers that lived before him. He acknowledged one
perfectly wise and good God, the author of all good, and of
the order so conspicuous in the universe. But not being
able to account for the evil that is in the world under the
administration of a good God, he asserted also a co-eternal
evil, or disorderly principle: though he supposed the former,
the good principle, to be the most prevalent. This was an
opinion he zealously maintained, as appears from several
passages in his writings; particularly in his Timaean
Psychogonie, his Platonic Questions, and his treatise of
Isis and Osiris. And he asserts it to have been the gene-
ral sentiment of the most antient and famous nations, and
of the wisest and greatest persons among^them: some of
them directly asserting two gods, others calling only the
good principle God, as Plutarch himself does, and the evil

276 The Pagan Philosophers did not hold God to be Part I.

one a Daemon (a). That Philosopher affirms, that this notion
obtained among the Persians, and maybe traced in the astro-
logy of the Chaldseans, in the mysteries and sacred rites
of the Egyptians, and among the Greeks themselves. And
he endeavours to shew that the most eminent philosophers
were in the same sentiments, particularly Pythagoras,
Empedocles, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and
others. In this however his prejudices in favour of his own
opinion seem to have carried him too far. Dr. Cudworth
has taken pains to clear these philosophers from the
charge; and says, that for ought we can yet learn, Plutarch
himself, Numenius, and Atticus, were the only Greek
philosophers who in their public writings openly main-
tained that opinion. But it is not probable, that if this
had been the case Plutarch, who was so well acquainted
with the history and tenets of the philosophers, and so
able a judge of them, would have asserted it to be so ge-
neral as he has done. Dr. Cudworth himself afterwards
mentions Apuleius as in the same way of thinking. And
it seems to have obtained among many of the oriental phi-
losophers.

But not to insist upon this, it deserves our notice, that
few, if any, of the antient Pagan philosophers, acknow-
ledged God to be in the most proper sense the Creator of

the world. By calling him " An^m^yoi the Maker of the

woild," they did not mean, that he brought it out of
non-existence into being, but only that he built it out of
prse-existent materials, and disposed it into a regular form
and order. Even those philosophers, who held God to be
an incorporeal essence, yet supposed two first principles of
things, really distinct from one another, both existing

(a) Plut. De Isid. et Osir. Oper. torn. ii. p. 369. 570. Edit.
Francof.

Chap. XIII. the Creator of the World in a popular Sense. fi77

from eternity, an incorporeal mind, and passive matter. Of
this opinion was Anaxagoras; so also was Pythagoras, as
Numcnius affirms, Archclaus, Archytas, and other Pytha-
goreans. Parmenidts and Empedocles asserted, that God
could not make any thing, bat out of prse-existent mate-
rials. Laertius expressly asserts, that Plato held two princi-
ples, God and matter; and that matter is without form
and infinite, but God put it in order (b). Plutarch also
ascribes this opinion to Plato, and to Socrates too, only he
adds a third principle, viz. ideas. De Placit. Philos. lib.
i. cap. 3. Oper. tom. 2. p. 878. He himself plainly asserts
the eternity of matter; and argues, that God could not
have formed the world if he had not had matter to work
upon (c). Laertius observes concerning the Stoics, that
they held there were two principles of the universe,
" TO n-otSp xett TO ^r«o•;^/flv— the active and the passive." " The
passive is rude unformed matter; the active is the reason
which acteth in it, that is God ( ^)." This opinion of the
Stoics is very clearly explained by Seneca, in the beginning
of his 65th epistle. And Zeno in a passage cited by

(b) Laert. lib. iii. segra. 69. where see M. Casaubon's note
upon it; as also Menage's observations. Dr. Cudworth endea-
vours to shew that Plato held, that God created matter: but it
would not be difficult to answer his arguments. Plato indeed
supposes mind to be prior to body; but by body he does not un-
derstand the first matter, but that which is formed out of it. The
learned Mosheim,in his Latin translation of the Intellectual Sys-
tem, has, as I am informed, for I have not his book by me, a long
dissertation to prove that Dr. Cudworth is mistaken, and that
Plato did really hold, that matter was eternal: and indeed there
are many authorities to prove it.

(rf) Laert. lib. vii. segm. 134. See also to the. same purpose
Plutarch De Placit. Phil. lib. i. cap. 3.

278 The Pagan Philosophers U7iiversally held Part I.

Stobseus, says, that "the first essence of all things that
exist is matter, and that this is all of it eternal, and not
capable of being either increased or diminished — aro-/e«y rh

fiUn^ 8Te iXcirla (e)." Cicero, as quoted by Lactantius, says,
that " it is not probable that the matter of things, out of
which all things were made, was formed by Divine Provi-
dence; but that it hath, and always had, a force and nature
of its own. And he goes on to argue, that if matter was not
made by God, neither was earth, air, water and fire made
by him (y). The famous Galen, after having acknowledged
that the opinion of Moses, who ascribed the production of
all things to God, is far more agreeable to reason than that
of Epicurus, who attributed the whole frame to a for-
tuitous concussion of atoms, yet asserts the prae-existence
of matter: and that the power of God could not extend it-
self beyond the capacity of matter which is wrought upon:
and that this was that in which Plato, and those of the
Greeks who writ rightly upon the nature of things differed
from Moses. I would observe by the way, that here is a
plain proof that the learned Heathens were sensible, that
Moses held that God not only formed the world out of
matter, but created the matter itself out of which the world
was made, which the Greek philosophers denied. See Ga-
len De Usu Part. lib. ii. ap. Stilling. Orig. Sacrae, book iii.
chap. 2. p. 441. Edit. 3d. The learned Dr. Thomas Bur-
net, who was well acquainted with the opinions of the
antients, says, that the Ionic, Pythagoric, Platonic, and

(e) Stob. Eclog. Phys. lib. i. cap. 14. p. 29. Edit. Plantin.

(/) Lactant. lib. ii. cap. 8. Davies thinks this was taken by
Lactantius from Cicero's third book De nat. Deorum, some
parts of which are now lost. See the fragments at the end of the
5d book De nat. Dear. Edit. Davies, 2d. p. 342, 343.

Chap. XIIL the Eternity of Matter. 279

Stoic schools all agreed in asserting the eternity of matter:
and that the doctrine, that matter was created out of no-
thing, seems to have been unknown to the philosophers^
and which they had no notion of (^).

It would be carrying it too far to say, that they who
did not acknowledge God to have created the world from
nothing, were not really Theists, or that they left no place
for religion. For supposing that there is a supreme eternal
Mind, of perfect wisdom and goodness, which formed this
world out of crude passive matter, and disposed it into
that regular and beautiful order in which we behold it,
though he did not originally give existence to th^t matter
itself, yet even on this supposition, it would be reasonable
for men to pay their religious adoration and obedience to
the great Orderer and Framer of this vast system, and
who still continueth to govern it. But though such persons
could not be justly charged with atheistical principles, yet
I think Dr. Cudworth very properly calls them " imper-
fect Theistsj" and observes, that they had not " a right
genuine idea of God.'* They absurdly ascribed necessary
existence, the noblest of the divine prerogatives, and which
really comprehendeth all others under it, to such a mean,
inert, imperfect thing, as they themselves represented mat-
ter to be. They limited the divine omnipotence, and could
not maintain it in its just extent: since upon their scheme
God could neither create nor annihilate matter, but could
only change or vary its forms. Nor can I see how they
could consistently suppose, that he had a power even of
doing this. For if matter existed from everlasting by a
necessity of nature, it must be uncaused and independent.
And on this supposition it is hard to conceive, how he
should have such power over it, as not only to put it in

(^) Archaeol. lib. i. cap. 12.

280 The Pagan Philosophers universally held Part L

motion out of its natural state of rest, but to change,
fashion, and model it according to his own will, as he must
do in forming the universe (Ji)* Many of those who main«-
tained that hypothesis, supposed, that matter might in se-
veral respects not be duly obsequious to his operations:
and that through the inaptitude of the materials, he might
not be able to order things as he would, but only did the
best the matter he worked upon would allow him to do.
This is hinted in those queries proposed by Seneca.
" Quantum Deus possit? Materiam ipse sibi formet, an
data utatur? Utrum Deus quicquid vult, efficiat, an in
multis rebus ilium tractanda destituant, et a magno artifice
prave formentur multa, non quia cessat ars, sed quia id in
quo exercetur seepe inobsequens arti est? (i)" — i. e. " How

(Ji) Those that held matter to be uncreated, eternal, and ne-
cessarily existent, did in effect ascribe to it the most essential
and fundamental attribute of the Deity. Plato calls God the
TO oy, as being that which properly is or exists. For, as Cicero ob-
serves, Plato would not allow any thing which hath a beginning
and ending, to have a real being and existence; and asserts that
that only is or exists which is always such. " Nihil Plato putat
esse quod oriatur et intereat; idque solum esse quod semper
tale sit." Tuscul. Disp. lib. i. cap. 24. Plutarch has some noble
speculations on this subject in his tract on the word EI in-
scribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi. He shews that it
cannot be so properly said of God, that he was or will be, as that
he is; that this signifies that he is the same eternal, indepen-
dent, immutable being, the only being that has a true and stable
existence. How he and other philosophers could, in consistency
with this, hold matter to be eternal and uncreated, and yet mutable,
the subject of so many changes, is hard to see. Those philoso-
phers, though otherwise very absurd, were more consistent with
themselves, who holding matter to be eternal, maintained that it
was immovable and invariable, and that all the mutations we see
in it are nothing in reality, but are appearances only.

(t) Seneca Quaest. Nat. lib. i, in prooemio.

Chap. XIII. the Eternity of Matter. 281

far the power of God extends? Whether he formed the
matter for himself, or maketh use of it when provided
for him? Whether God can effect whatsoever he willeth;
or in many things the materials he is to work with dis-
appoint him? Whereby it comes to pass, that many things
are ill framed by the Great Artificer; not that his art is
deficient, but because that which it is exercised upon
often proves stubborn and untractable to his art?" Ac-
cordingly many of the philosophers, and particularly the
Stoics, resolved the origin and cause of evil into the con-
tumaciousness and perversity of matter; though, as Plu-
tarch argues against them, it is absurd to imagine that
matter, which they supposed to be void of all quality, could
be the cause of evil (Ji),

Indeed the latter Platonists and Pythagoreans, who lived
after Christianity had been for some time published to the
world, Plotinus, lamblicus, Proclus, and others, held that
matter was not absolutely self- existent, but owed its exist-
ence to God as the original cause: but even they did not
admit a proper creation of matter. They would not allow
that the world had a beginning, but supposed it to have
proceeded eternally from God by way of emanation or
eradiation, as light from the sun.

And this leads to another instance in which the philoso-
phers perverted the antient tradition, and instead ot im-
proving in divine knowledge, fell from the original truth
derived from the first ages. The Pagans had, as was ob-
served before, a traditionary account that the world had a
beginning, and that it was created by God. This doctrine,
as far as it related to the world's having had a beginning,
obtained among the antient Egvptians, as Laertius informs
us from Hetatseus and Aristagoras. In this they were fol-

{k) Plut. Psychogon. Oper. torn. ii. p. 1014, 1015,
Vol. I. 2 N

282 3Iany Philosophers asserted the World to be Part !•

lowed by the most antient of the Greek theologues and
philosophers. But though both the one and the other ac-
knowledged the temporary beginning of the worlu, as Epi-
curus did afterwards, they dropped that part of the antient
tradition which was of principal importance, viz. that the
world was made by God. Anaxagoras agreed with them,
that the world had a beginning; but then he ascribed the
formation of it to an intelligent mind: yet this, according
to him, was only a putting that rude and disorderly mass of
matter, which he supposed to be eternal, into order, and dis-
posing it into the present system. The famous Aristotle
wa3 not satisfied with this, but entirely rejected the antient
traditionary accounts of the temporary origin of the world,
and maintained it to be eternal both as to matter and form»
He says, all the philosophers before him asserted that the
world had a beginning (/). So they did for the most part,
but it is not true of them all. Ocellus Lucanus, the Py-
thagorean, who lived before Aristotle, argued for the eter-
nity of the world, as appears from his book of the nature
of the universe, still extant. Xenophanes is mentioned by
Plutarch as of the same opinion (w). And Stobseus im-
putes this opinion to some others of the Greek philosophers
before the time of Aristotle. The antient Chaldaeans, ac-
cording to Diodorus Siculus, held that the world is eternal,
and was neither generated, nor is liable to corruption:
though this cannot be true of all the Chaldseans, if what
Berosus, their own historian, saith of them be true, that
they supposed Bel to be the maker of heaven and earth;
which probably was at first the name of the true God, but

(/) Arist. De Coelo, lib. i. cap. 10.

{m) De Placit. Philos. lib. ii. cap. 4. Opera, torn. ii. p. 886,

{n) Eclog. Phys. lib. i. cap. 24. p. 44. Edit. Plantin.

Chap, XIII. eternal in its present Form, 283

afterwards became the name of an idol; being confounded
with the sun, and with the hero Belus, one of their first
kings. Maimonides tells us concerning the antient Zabians,
that they held the eternity of the world. And among the
Greek philosophers, from the time of Aristotle, it became
the favourite opinion. It was maintained not only by the
Peripatetics, but by all the latter Platonists and Pythago-
reans, Plotinus, Apulekis, lamblicus, Alcinous, Proclus,
who affirmed, as was hinted before, that the world came
from God, as light from the sun. They held indeed, that
both the substance and form of matter depended upon the
Deity; that therefore it was not self- existent, and could no
more subsist without God, nor separately from him, than
light without the sun: but then it followed also, that God
could not be without the world, any more than the sun can
be without its light: that it is a necessary emanation or ef-
flux from him, and does not depend upon the free determi-
nation of his own will.

It is true that they argued, as Aristotle had done before
them, from the essential activity and benignity of the Di-
vine Nature, which must have been from eternity in ac-
tion: and upon this principle they maintained, that both
the corporeal world, with all things in it, existed from all
eternity, and that the souls of men and all other animals
were eternal too, without beginning: and that they were
coseval with God, who was indeed before them in order
of nature, but not of time. But if God be a wise and free
agent, the particular communications and effects of his
power and goodness, must depend upon what seemeth
most fit to his infinite wisdom, and upon the counsels and
free purposes of his own mind and will: and on that
supposition the eternity of the world could not be rightly
argued from the eternity of the divine power and goodness.
Indeed it cannot be consistently maintained, but upon this

S84 Many Philosophers asserted the World to be Part L

principle, that God is a necessary agent, and that all things
proceed from him by a necessity of nature. For then the
world must be eternal, and not only so, but must ne-
cessarily exist as well as he. And indeed the doctrine of
these philosophers naturally led to the Spinosan scheme,
and terminated in it; the fundamental principle of which
is, that all things proceed from God by way of necessary
emanation, not of creation; or are the necessary modifica-
tions of his infinite essence: a scheme which confounds
God and the creature, and, pursued to its genuine conse-
quences, is subversive of all religion and morality.

The next thing I shall mention as a farther proof of the
wrong notions of the Deity which obtained among the
Heathen philosophers, and which hath a near affinity with
what has been now observed, is, that many of the most
celebrated philosophers held the whole animated system of
the world, and especially the soul of it, to be God. This,
according to Plutarch, was the doctrine of the antient
Egyptians, who tells us from Hecatseus, that they account-
ed the first God to be the same with the " to :t<6»— -or the
universe." '* Tov v^arhy 3-gov ru yrcivTi rov etvrh vof^it^atri (o)."
To this probably refers the famous inscription on the tem-
ple of Isis, " I am all that hath been, is, or shall be." It
was a noted maxim, as Dr. Cudvvorth hath shewn, both
of the Egyptian and Orphic schools, and maintained by
the most eminent philosophers, that God is one and all
things. I will not deny what the learned Doctor asserts,
that this might at first be intended in a favourable sense,
and might signify no more than that the divine essence is
diffused through all things, and that God is the cause of all
things, and virtually containeth all things in himself. It is

(o) Plut. De Isid. et Osir. Oper. torn. ii. p. 354. D.

Chap. XIII. eternal in its present Form<. 285

thus that he explains that passage of Aristotle in his Meta-
physics, where he speaks of some " who pronounced con-
cerning the whole universe as being but one nature." "That
is," saith the Doctor, " as virtually containing all things."
But this seems to be only his own gloss upon it. The words
in Aristotle are more naturally expressive of an opinion
like that of Spinosa, that there is but one substance in the
universe. But whatever might have been the original in-
tention of that maxim, that God is one and all things, it
was, by the learned Doctor's own acknowledgment, greatly
perverted and abused, and gave occasion in their confound-
ing God and the creature in their worship. He observes,
that it was the mistake and abuse of this one maxim, which
was the chief ground both of the seeming and real polythe-
ism, not only of the Greeks and Europeans, but also of the
Egyptians and other Pagans; they concluding, that because
God was all things, and consequently all things God, that
therefore he ought to be worshipped in all things, in all the
several parts of the world, and things of nature ( /?).

(Ji) Agreeable to this is what we are told concerning the
Chinese, that it is a principle universally received among ihem,
and maintained by the three principal sects of China, especially
by those of the learned sect, antient and modern, That all things
are the same, one universal substance, only disUnguished by ac-
cidental forms and qualities. Upon this principle they sacrifice
to particular beings, as parts of the universal substance, to hea-
ven, earth, mountains, rivers, &c. F. Longobardi ejives an in-
stance in one of their learned doctors T. V Puen Su, who said,
he might well adore the dish of c^a or tea he then held in his
hand, as knowing that tai kie^ \\. e. the universal substance]
was in it, after the same manner that it is in heaven, and in all
other parts of the world. And F. Navarette in his notes on
Longobardi's treatise says, that this Chinese P»axim, that all
things are one and the same, is so plain in their books, and so

286 Many held that the whole Part I.

This learned writer indeed will not allow, that the
Egyptians held the material world, that is, as he explains it,
the world considered as inanimate, to be the first and chief
God: but it follows from his own account of them, that they
held the whole animated system of the world to be God:
or, as he expresseth it, " they took the whole system of
things, God and the world together, as one Deity." He ob-
serves, that " the to «•<«» — or universe, was frequently taken
by the Pagan theologers in a comprehensive sense for the
Deity with all the extent of its fecundity, or God as dis-
playing himself in the world, or for God and the world
both together, the latter being looked upon as nothing but
an efflux or emanation from the former." He adds, " that
the god Pan among the Greeks and Barbarians was under-
stood in this sense: and that Zgy? and Pan, according to
Diodorus Siculus, were only two different names of the
same deity." And speaking of those Pagans who acknow-
ledged no higher numen than the soul of the world, he
saith, " that as they supposed the whole corporeal world
animated to be also the Supreme Deity; from thence it
plainly followed, that the several parts and members of the
world must be parts and members of God (§')."

This notion seems to have been very generally received
among the more learned Pagans. That eminent antiquary
Varro, speaking of what he esteemed the natural and true
theology, gives it as his own opinion, that " God is the
soul of the world, and that this world is itself God — Deum
se arbitrari esse animam mundi, et hunc ipsum mundum

often repeated, that there can be no doubt of it. See Longobardi's
treatise with the notes upon it in the fifth book of Navarette*s
account of the empire of China, in the first volume of Churchiirs
Collection, Sec. p. 181. 184, 185. 191.

(y) Cudworth's Intel. System, p. 343, 344. 533.

Chap. XIII. ajiimated system of the world is God, 28f

esse Deum (0*" And to this sense he interprets the cele-
brated verses of Valerius Soranus:

" Jupiter Omnipotens, regum, rerumque, deumque
Progenitor, Genitrixque deum, Deus unus et omnis (s).'*

In these verses Jupiter the Omnipotent is represented as
the Father of kings, of things, and of gods, the Mother of
the gods, one God and all gods. This Varro understands of
the world, or the universe. Agreeable to which is that of
larchas the bramin to ApoUonius: that "the world is an
animal; for it generateth all things, and is both of a male
and female nature, performing the part both of father and
mother." The same notion runs through many of the verses
ascribed to Orpheus. The reader may see many other testi-
monies of the antients concerning the world's being God,
collected by the learned Gataker, in his Annotations on
Marcus Antoninus, p. 145, 146. So much were the Hea-
thens possessed with this notion, that because the Jews
worshipped no images, and performed their adorations to
the Deity with hands and eyes lifted up to heaven, they con-
cluded, that they took heaven and the world to be God.
Thus Strabo, who is generally an exact and judicious wri-
ter, praising Moses for his religious sentiments of God,
saith, he affirmed " this one thing only to be God, which
containeth us all, and the earth and sea, which we call
heaven, and the world, and the nature of the whole. —

tv riiro (xovov B-iov, to ^sgisp^^oK ijfAcii UTrecvrecg^ j^ y^v, ^ B-eiXxrlecyf «
Ket>^5f>ci9 ii^uvov, >^ KOTf^oV) t^ riiv tm oXm ^vtriv (t),^^ Diodorus

(r) Apud Augustin. De Civ. Dei, lib. vii. cap. 9. p. 131.
(s) So it is in the Benedictine edition; in other editions the
latter clause of the first line runs, " Regum rex ipse Deumque.*'
(0 Strabo, lib. xvi. p. 1014. Edit. Amstel. 170/.

288 Many held that the whole Part L

Siculus, as cited by Photius, expresseth himself to the sanae
purpose (w).

But none were more strenuous asserters of this notion
than the Stoics. Arius Didymus, quoted by Eusebius, saith
concerning the Stoics, that " they call the whole world with
all its parts God, and that this is one onlv. — 'aXtv rh xoa-fAtv
o-vf rc7i leivra fii^ea-t ^^oretye^tvavt ^ov, tbtov h hx. f^covov uvcci (-X")"
Laertius in his life of Zeno explains the doctrine of the
Stoics thus, that they maintained, that ^' the world is go-
verned by mind and providence: and that this mind passeth
through every part of it, as the soul doth in us: which yet
doth not act in all parts alike, but in some more, in some
less, — And that the whole world being a living and rational
animal hath, like our souls, its hegemonical or principal
part(y)." Though they held the whole anir.iated world to
be God, yet they supposed that the soul of the world acted
principally in one eminent part of it, which sometimes they
called God, by way of eminency; though what this was they
were not agreed. Zeno, as Velleius in Cicero informs us,
said that the aether was God (2). Chrysippus, according to
Laertius, varied, sometimes making it the sether, sometimes
the heaven. But Cleanthes, according to the same author,
held it to be the sun ((7). This is also what Cicero observes
in his Academics, where he concludes, that " by this dis-
agreement among the wise we are compelled to be ignorant
who is the Lord over us, since we know not whether we
serve the sun or the aether." " Zenoni et reliquis fere Stoicis
aether videtur summus deus mente praeditus qua omnia re-

(w) Ap. Phot. Biblioth. cod. 244.

(x) Praepar. Evanpjel. lib. xv. cap. 15. p. 8 IT.

(y) Laert. in Zen. lib. vii. segm. 138, 139.

(z) De nat. Deer. lib. i. cap. 14.

(a) Laert. ubi supra.

Chap. XIII. anhnated system of the world is God. 289

gantur. Cleanthes — Solem dominari et rerum potiri putat.
Ita cogimur dissensione sapientum dominum nostrum igno-
rare, quippe qui nesciamus, soli an setheri serviamus (^)."
Plutarch represents the opinion of the Stoics thus, that
" they define the essence of God to be a fiery spirit endued
with intelligence, or, as he elsewhere calls it, a technical
fire — TTv^ rsxvtxov, having no shape or form, but is changed
into whatever it pleases, and assimilates itself to all things
—That it pervadeth the whole world, and receiveth various
denominations from the various changes of the matter
through which it passeth; and that the world is God, and
so are the stars, and the earth, but especially the Intellect
which is in the highest aether (c)."

It cannot but give one concern, to observe Balbus in
Cicero, amidst excellent reasonings to prove the existence
and providence of the Deity from the beauty and order of
the works of nature, gravely arguing, that the world is an
animal, and hath intelligence, that it is happy, reasonable,
and wise, and that therefore the world is God. This he fre-
quently repeats and insists upon (^). And he argues also
from the divinity of the world to that of the stars: and that

{b) Academ. lib. ii. cap. 41.

(c) Plut. De Placit. Philos. lib. i. cap. 6. in the beginning,
compared with cap. 7. at the latter end. Oper. torn. ii. p. 379.
885. Origen therefore does not carry it too far, when he charges
the Stoics with holding, that God is corporeal, and that they do
not scruple to say that he is mutable, and capable of all manner
of variations. Cont. Gels. lib. i. p. 17. And again, he says, they
were unable to understand the true nature of God, as absolutely
incorruptible, simple, uncompounded, and indivisible. Ibid. lib.
iv. p. 169.

(rf) ** Sapientem esse mundum, similiter beatum, similiter
seternum — nee mundo quicquam melius, ex quo efficitur esse
mundum Deum." De nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 8. et cap. 13, et seq.

Vol. I. 2 O

290 Many held that the whole Part I,

they are animals, and have sense and intelligence. From
whence he concludes, that they are to be reckoned in the
number of the gods (e). And he proves from the admira-
ble order and constancy of their courses and motions, that
they themselves have reason and understanding, and that
they are moved by their own sense and divinity (/*). Thus
they asserted the divinity of the world in their disputes
against atheism, and in proving the existence of God, they
argued upon the supposition of his being the soul of the
world. So that their way of reasoning against the Atheists
and Epicureans was so managed as to establish their own
wrong system, and lay a foundation for deifying and wor-
shipping the several parts of the universe.

In consequence of this their theology, they held that
particular souls were parts of the divine universal soul,
and visible and corporeal things parts of his body. " Why
should you not think," says Seneca, " that he has some di-
vine thing existing in him, who is a part of God? This
whole in which we are contained is both one thing, and is
God: we are both his fellows or companions, and his mem-
bers.—Quid est autem, cur non existimes in eo divini ali-
quid existere, qui Dei pars est? Totum hoc quo continemur,
et unum est et Deus: et socii ejus sumus et membra (^)."

{e) " Hac mundi divinitate perspecta, tribuenda est sideribus
eadem divinitas, ut ea quoque reclissimi et animantia esse, et
sentire atque intelligire dicantur — ex quo efficitur in Deorum
numero astra esse ducenda,'* De nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap 15.

(/) " Sequitur ergo ut ipsa sua sponte, sue sensu, ac divini-
tate moveantur." Ibid. cap. 16. et cap. 21.

{g) This may perhaps be thought an extravagant flight of
Seneca. But the same thint< in effect is said by that excellent
philosopher Epictetus. In answer to that question, '' How any
one may be convinced, tliat each of his actions are under the in-
spection of God?" He insists principally upon this, that "our
souls are connected and intimately joined to God, being (*o^im

Chap. XIII. animated system of the world is God, 291

Marcus Antoninus often describes God under the character
of " the nature of the whole." See to this purpose lib. v. s*
10. lib. ix. s. 1. and other places. And he addresses hi»

itui ttfntfrrrticrfjLureii, S-gS — members and distinct portions of his es«
senceit" So Miss Carter in her translation well represents the
sense. *' And must he not," adds Epictetus, " be sensible of
every movement of them, as belonging and being conndltural to
himself?'* And he there afterwards represents God as '* having
made the sun a small part of himself, if compared with the
whole." Epict. Dissert, lib. i. chap. 14. So also in his 2d book,
chap. 8 s. 2. he repeats it, that " man is a distinct portion of the
Divine Essence; and represents him as containing a part of God
in himself. And advises persons to consider when they are feed-
ing and exercising, that it is a god they feed, and a god they ex-
ercise, and that they continually carry a god about with them."
In like manner Marcus Antoninus, speaking of the daemon or
genius, which Jupiter hath given to every man to be his leader
and conductor, by which he means every man's rational soul, calls
it etTtcffzrda-f^et lecvlQt which Gataker translates " particulam a se
avulsam— a small part plucked from himself." Anton, lib. v. s. 27.
The note upon this passage in the Glasgow translation of Anto-
ninus's Meditations is this, that *' the Stoics conceived the Di-
vine Substance to be an infinitely diffused and all-pervading
aether, the seat of all wisdom, power, and goodness; and that our
souls were small particles of this aether; and that even those of
brutes were particles of the same, more immersed and intangled
in the grosser elements." Antoninus elsewhere represents the
soul as uTToji^tixy an efflux or emanation from the Governor of the
world. Lib. ii. s. 4. And he calls every man's mind or rational
soul the Divinity within him, and the God within him. Lib. ii.
s. 13. lib, iii. s. 5. et 16. lib. v. s. 10. Seneca frequently uses the
same manner of expression. But this was far from being a doc-
trine peculiar to the Stoics. It was shewn before that it was the
avowed doctrine of Pythagoras and all the Pythagoreans. See
above p. 259. And Cicero seems to represent it as the general
opinion of the wisest and most learned men. "Aqua [Natura
Deorum] ut doctissimis sapientissimisque placuit, haustos ani-^

292 The notion of the WorWs being' God Part L

prayer to the world, lib. iv. s. 23. " Whatsoever is agree-
able to thee, O eomely world, is agreeable to me. — ^Zv fx.tl
9vvx^/u,o^ti 0 ffci, tvee^ifon £f< u Koa-f^tJ*"* And he adds, '' Every
thing is acceptable truit to liie, which thy seasons, O nature,
bear. From thee are all things, in thee all things subsist, to
thee all things return." By the world here, and in other
places, he especially understands the soul of the world,
which the Stoics made the principal governing part. St.
Austin having mentioned Varro's opinion, that the
world is God, adds by way of explication as from Varro
himself, that " as a wise man, though consisting of body
and soul, is denominated wise from his soul, so though the
world consisteth of body as well as soul, yet it is from the
soul that it is called God. — Sicut hominem sapientem, cuiti
sit ex corpore et animo, tamen ab animo dici sapientem ita
mundum dici Deum ab animo, cum sit ex animo et cor-
pore (A)." Lactantius's censure upon these philosophers is
certainly very just. That " under the name of nature they
comprehend things which are entirely different from one
another, God and the world, the artificer and his work-
manship; and say that the one can do nothing without the
other: as if nature were God and the world mixed together;
for sometimes they so confound them, as to make God to be
the soul of the world, and the world to be the body of
God. — Naturae nomine res diversissimas comprehendunt.

mos et libatos habemus.'* De Divinat. lib. i. cap. 49. To this Ho-
race refers, when he calls the soul " divinae particulam aurae."
And Virgil in those noted verses of his Georgia, lib. iv. vers.
220, et seq. and iEjieid. lib. vi. vers. 724, et seq. Plato has se-
veral passages that seem to look this way, as the learned author
of the Divine Legation of Moses has shewn; but it must be also
acknowledged that there are other passages in his works which
have a contrary appearance.

(h) Ap. August. De Civit. Dei, lib. vii. cap. vi. p. 139, et ibid,
cap. 9. p. 131.

Chap. XIII. used to promote the Pagan Polytheism. 293

Deum et mundum; artificem et opus: dicuntque alterum
sine altero nihil posse: tanquam natura sit Deus mundo per-
mixtus: nam interdum sic confundunt, ut sit Deus ipsa
mens mundi, et mundus sit corpus Dei."

It were well, if the absurdity of this way of philosophiz-
ing were the worst of it. But besides that it gave occasion
to some of those extravagant flights of the Stoics, so unbe-
coming dept:ndent creatures, as if they had a divinity and
sufficiency in themselves, which placed them in several re-
spects on an equality with God; this notion was made use
of for supporting the Pagan idolatry, and was therefore of
the most pernicious consequence to the interests of religion.
For upon this principle, as was hinted before, they deified
the several parts of the world, and things of nature, and
worshipped them as gods or parts of God. Cicero in his
Academics gives this representation of the sentiments of the
Stoics: that they held, that " this world is wise, and hath a
mind or soul, whereby it formed or fabricated both it and
itself (i), and ordereth, moveth, and governeth all things:
and that the sun, moon, all the stars, the earth and sea are
gods; because a certain animal intelligence pervadeth and
passeth through all things. — Hunc mundum esse sapientem,
habere mentem, qua et se et ipsum fabricata sit, et omnia
moderetur, moveat, regat, erit persuasum etiam solem, lu-
nam, Stellas omnes, terram,mare, Deos esse: quod qusedam
animalis intelligentia per omnia permeat et transeat (i)." In
like manner the great and learned Varro expressly sa)'s, that
" the soul of the world, and its parts, are the true gods:"
and represents this as the sentiment of those who had the

(t) This way of talking, as if God made himself, though very
improper and absurd, was used not only by the Stoics, but by
Plato and others of the philosophers.

(k) Cic. Academ. lib. ii. cap. 37.

294 The Pagans were universally Part I.

justest notions, and were acquainted with the secrets of
learning. " Dicit Varro antiques simulacra Deorum, et in»
signia, ornatusque finxisse; quse, cum oculis animadvertis-
sent hi qui adissent doctrinae mysteria, possent animam
mundi ac partes ejus, id est, veros Deos, aniino vidtre (/)."
Thus it appears, that the one God of these philosophers was
really an aggregate of deities. The unity of God they
pleaded for was the unity of the world, which consisteth of
innumerable parts: and accordingly the great stoical argu-
ment to prove that there is one God was, that there is but
one world; but this one divinity was multiplied into as
many gods as there were parts of the world, all animated by
the same universal soul, and all of them parts of the one
God. This theology or philosophy therefore furnished a
pretext for worshipping the several parts of the world, and
the powers and virtues diffused through the parts of it, un-
der the name of the popular divinities (w). And thus, in-
stead of curing the popular superstition and polytheism,
they confirmed and established it, and, as Plutarch charges
the Stoics, filled the air, heaven, earth, and sea with
gods (n).

Even after Christianity had spread abroad its salutary-
light, some of the most eminent Pagan philosophers made
use of this very notion to justify the Heathen polytheism.
The celebrated Plotinus, speaking of the soul of the world,
saith, that " by this," [i. e. by its soul] " the world is a

(/) Ap. August. De Civ. Dei, lib. vii. cap. 5. p. 128.

(m) Thus St. Austin speaking of what were called the Dii
majorum Gentium, Jupiter, Juno, Saturn, Neptune, Vulcan,
Vesta, and others, observes, " that Varro endeavoured to apply
them to the elements aid parts of the world. — Quos Varro cona-
tur ad mundi partes sive elementa transferre." De Civ. Dei, lib.
viii. cap. 5.

(n) De Commun. Notit. advers. Stoicos, torn. ii. p. 1075.

Chap. XIII. World worshippers* 295

god: and the sun is also a god, because animated, and so are
the other stars. — 5*« ravr^it o xoa-fm oh Seo^, 'Ui Se f§ fiXloi B-coi0
ort ifc^vxo^i ^ "^^ «*^^<« »«5-§fle ((?)." Proclus has a long dispute
to prove, that not only the stars are animated, but also all
the other sublunary bodies or elements. *' If the world,"
says he, " be a happy God, then none of the parts of it are
godless, or devoid of providence." And he goes on to shew,
that they partake of the Divinity of the whole (/;).

It is a just observation of the learned Dr. Cudworth
concerning the latter Platonists and Pythagoreans, that " in
their philosophy they designedly laid a foundation for their
polytheism and creature-worship, that is, for their cosmo-
latry, astrolatry, and dsemonolatry." [Their idolatrous M^or-
ship of the world, of the stars, and of daemons.] Intel. Syst.
p. 598. And having shewn, that " the world was to some of
them the body, to others the temple of God; and in either
sense to be worshipped," he adds, " Thus we see that the
Pagans were universally cosmolatrae, or world worshippers,
in one sense or other; not that they worshipped the world
as a dead inanimate thing, but either as the body of God,
or as the temple or image of God." But he observes, that
*' neither of them terminated their worship in that which
was sensible or visible only, but in that great mind or soul,
which framed and governeth the whole world understand-
ingly." Ibid. p. 538, 539. And he had said before concern-
ing those who held God to be the soul of the world, that
'* they worshipped the several parts and members of the
world, not as being themselves so many gods, but as parts
of one God, or as his powers and virtues, as making up
one God in the whole, which yet might be worshipped in

(o) Ennead. lib. v. cap. 2. p. 483. E.

(A) ProQlus in Tim. Plat. lib. iv. apud Cudw. Intel. Syst. p.
237.

S96 The Pagans were universally Part L

its several parts (5')." Ibid. p. 536, 537. To the same pur-
pose he elsewhere tells us, that ** these personated and dei-
fied things of nature, were not themselves properly and
directly worshipped by the intelligent Pagans (who acknow-
ledged no inanimate thing for a God) so as td terminate
their worship ultimately in them; but either relatively only
to the Supreme God, or else at most in a way of complica-
tion with him, whose effects and images thev are; that they
were not so much themselves worshipped, as God was wor-
shipped in them." Ibid. p. 515. This is the most plausible
thing that can possibly be said for them, and is the pretence
which has been made use of by the ablest and most refined
apologists for idolatry in all ages: and yet it is an apology
which, if it had any force, might be extended to vindicate
the paying religious worship to everything in nature, under
pretence of worshipping God in it. And whereas it is here
said, that at most they only worshipped the things of nature
*' in a way of complication with God, whose effects and
images they are," what is this but to say, that in their
worship they mixed and confounded the creature with the
Creator? And accordingly they arrived to that pitch of
extravagance, as the Doctor owns, " as to call every thing
''by the name of God, and God by the name of every
thing." This excellent writer himself, though he sometimes
seems willing to apologize for the Pr.gan idolatry, yet has
passed this just censure upon it: That " the Pagans did not
worship God according to his singular and incommunicable,
his peerless and incomprehensible nature, but mingled crea-

{q) It is however to be observed, that they so explained this
matter, that these several parts of God were each of them to be
regarded and worshipped as so many particular deities, or dis-
tinct gods and goddesses, as the learned Doctor himself some-
times acknowledges.

CkAP. XIII. World worshippers^ 297

ture-worship with the worship of the Creator. And that the
worshipping God in his various gifts and effects under per°
^onal names, is a thing in itself absurd, and may also prove
a great inlet to atheism, when the things themselves come
tb be called by those names; as if the good things of nature
were the only deities. To worship the corpioreal world as
the one Supreme God, and the several parts of it as mem-
bers of God, is plainly to confound God and the creature,;
and not to worship him as the Creator, and according to
his separate nature (r)."

It appears from the observations which have been made^
how strangely the philosophers, even those of them that
were most celebrated and admired, w^ere lost and bewilder-
ed in their own reasonings, in things of the highest impor-
tance: and consequently how unfit they were to guide the
people in religion, and to recover them from their idolatry
and polytheism. This furnishes a manifest and convincing
proof of the weakness of human reason when left to itself
in these matters, and of the delusions of science falsely sd
called. It was therefore upon the justest grounds, that the
apostle gave that caution, " Beware lest any man spoil yoit
through philosophy and vain deceit."

(r) See the contents prefixed by him to his ivth chapter, sect.
Ivii. This was what this learned writer proposed particularly te^
shew, and it is a pity that he did not accomplish this part of his
great work.

Vol. 1 g F

298 The Philosophers in their serious Discourses Part I.

CHAPTER XIV.

The greatest and best of the antient Pagan philosophers generallj' expressed
themselves hi the polytheistic strain; and, instead of leading the people to the
one true God, they spoke of a plurality of gods, even in their most serious dis-
courses. They ascribed those works to the gods, and directed those duties to
be rendered to them, which properly belong to the Supreme.

Another thing to be observed concerning the antient
Pagan philoi>ophers,and which shews how improper they
were to bring the people to a right knowledge of God and
religion, and to turn them from their superstition and ido-
latry, is, that they generally fell into the common language
of polytheism, and talked as much of the gods as any of the
people, and this even in their most serious discourses. In-
stead of urging the worship of the one true God, and en-
deavouring to preserve on the minds of men a sense of the
infinite distance between him and all other beings whatsoever,
they recommended to the veneration of the people a plura-
lity of deities, to whom they gave those peculiar attributes
and honours which were due to him alone. Zaleucus the
Locrian, who may be regarded as having been a wise phi-
losopher as well as lawgiver, in his celebrated proemium or
preface to his laws, where he argues from the evidences of
the divine power, wisdom, and goodness, in the orderly
disposition of things in the universe, does not lead the
people to the acknowledgment of the one true Supreme
God, but of a plurality of gods. See the passage quoted
above, chap. 2d, p. 76, to which I now add, that he after-
wards goes on to urge it upon them as their duty " to re-
member the gods, both that they really exist, and that they
inflict judgments upon unrighteous persons («)." To the

(a) Apud Stob. serm. 42.

Chap. XIV. encouraged and promoted Polytheism. 299

same purpose Archytas, a celebrated Pythagorean, in the
fragments of his work De Lege, preserved by Stobseus,
delivers himself in this manner, that " the first law of the
constitution should be for the support of what relates to
the gods, the daemons, and our parents." The learned
Bishop of Gloucester, who takes notice of this, observes,
that " in like manner, if we may believe antiquity, all their
civil institutes were prefaced; its constant phrase being,
when speaking of a legislator, ^leKoa-^et rnv TroXireUv kva ^eSf
u^^of^em (Jj)* — He set in order the polity, beginning from
the gods."

It has been already observed concerning that best of the
antient philosophers Socrates, that in those excellent dis-
courses of his with Aristodemus and Euthydemus, in which
he treats particularly of religion and the Deity, he all along
speaks of God and the gods promiscuously, as the authors
of the human frame, and of all the good things we enjoy.
And to this probably Velleius in Cicero refers, when he
blames Xenophon for introducing Socrates as mentioning
now one, then many gods. " Modo unum, tum autem
plures deos (c)." The same Socrates speaking of the un-
written laws, as he calls them, which are observed after the
same manner in all places, and which he supposes not to
have been made by men, since all men are not of one lan-
guage, nor could meet together to consult about them and
enact them, but to have been given by the gods themselves
to mankind, mentions it in the first place as an universal
law received among all men, " t»« S-ssr; <?sSs*» — to worship the
gods." As if it were the law of nature obligatory on all

{b) Div. Leg. of Moses, vol. i. p. 112. Edit. 4th.
(c) De nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 12.

300 The Philosophers in their serious Discourses Part I,

fnankind to worship not one God only, but a plurality of
(deities. Xenophon mentions it to the praise of Socrates,
that whereas *^ oi TrtXXol — the generality of men, supposed
that there are some things which the gods know, and other
things which they do not know, Socrates was of opinion
that the gods know all things, both the things which are
said, and the things which are done, and even the things
which are deliberated upon in secret: and that they are
every where present, and give significations to men concern-
ing all human affairs (<i)." A noble sentence this, if ap-
plied to the one true God: but when applied to a multipli-
city of gods, tended to mislead the people, and to confirm
them in their polytheism, as if there was a number of om-
niscient, omnipresent deities. The same observation may
be made concerning a remarkable saying of Thales, men-
tioned by Laertius: being asked, whether a man in his un-
just actions can escape the notice of the gods? He answered,
no, not in his thoughts (e),

Plato in his arguings for the existence of a Deity against
the atheists, which he professedly undertakes in his tenth
book of laws, speaks all along of gods in the plural. The
point he sets himself to prove in opposition to atheism,
which he represents as at that time much prevailing, is not
that there is one God, but that there are gods. And in the
beginning of that book he introduces one of his dialogists
as saying, " that it is easy to prove the existence of the
gods: the earth, the sun, the stars, and the universe, and
the well-ordered variety of seasons, shew it: as also the
ponsent both of Greeks and Barbarians, who all agree that

(d) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. jv. s. 19. p. 327. Edit. Symp-
lon.

(«•) Laert. lib. i. segm. 36.

Chap. XIV. encouraged and promoted Poliftheism. 30J

there are gods (/)." In like manner, when in the sam?;
tenth book of laws he argues for a Providence, what he
undertakes to prove is, that the gods take care of mankind
and their affairs, and do not neglect even small matters (_§*).
And in his Epinomis, or sequel to his books of laws, he
lays it down as a principle, *' a^ ut} S-iot ivtf^iX^fAivct 7rei,vraiv
erfAiK^av i^ ^iyti^av (/^)." That " the gods exisi, and take care
of all things, both small and great." And in his whole dis-
putation on that subject it is the Providence of the gods
that he asserts, and even of the gods which are appointed
by the laws.

Cicero has many noble passages relating to the existence
of a Deity and a Providence. But they tend to lead the
people not so much to the acknowledgment of the one Su-
preme God, as of a multiplicity of gods. Some notice
was taken of this before in the second chapter of this work.
To which I now add, that when he is speaking of the con-
sent of nations, he seems to make it relate, as Plato had
done before him, not to the belief of one Supreme Cause
and Author of all things, but to a plurality of gods or di-
vine powers. He observes, that " it is a strong argument to
engage us to believe that there are gods, that there is no
nation so wild and savage, no man so rude and uncultivated,
whose mind is not embued with the opinion that there are
gods. Many have wrong sentiments concerning the gods,
but all think there is a divine power and nature (?)." He

(/) Plato Oper. p. 664. E. Edit. Fie, Lugd. 1590.

(g) Ibid. p. 670,671.

(h) Ibid. p. 700. E.

(f) But then it is to be observed, that though all are here
supposed to believe that there is a divine nature and power, yet
many imagined that this divine nature and power resided in a
muliitude of deities.

302 The Philosophers in their serious Discourses Part I.

adds, that " in every thing the consent of all nations is to
be looked upon as the law of nature. — Ut porro firmissi-
mum hoc adferri videtur cur deos esse credamus, quod nulla
gens tarn fera, nemo omnium tarn sit immanis, cujus men-
tern non imbuerit deorum opinio. Multi de diis prava sen-
tiunt, omnes autem esse vim et naturam divinam arbitran-

tur. Omni autem in re consensio omnium gentium, lex

naturae putanda est (/^)." And again he says, that " it is as
it were, engraven on the minds of all men that there are
gods. What they are is not agreed, but that they are is de-
nied by none. — Omnibus innatum est, et animo quasi in-
sculptum, esse deos; quales sint varium est; esse nemo
negat (/)." And Cotta represents it as a thing in which all
men agree, except those that are very impious, and which
could never be erased out of his mind, that there are gods.
'' Quod inter omnes, nisi admodum impios, convenit, mihi
quidem ex animo exuri non potest, esse deos (w)." Many
other passages might be produced, in which the consent of
nations is urged to shew that there are gods (?z)» The same
conclusion is drawn from the pulchritude and order of the
universe, and other arguments usually brought in proof of
a Deity. Balbus the Stoic, in Cicero's second book De
natura Deorum, having mentioned some of those arguments,
says, that *' he that considers them will be forced to con-

{k) Tuscul. Disput. lib. i. cap. 13.

(/) De nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 4.

(m) Ibid. lib. iii. cap. 3.

(n) There is a remarkable passage of Seneca to the same
purpose in the beginning of his 1 17th epistle. " Apud nos veri-
tatis argumentum est aliquid omnibus videri: tanquam deos esse
inter alia sic colligimus, quod omnibus de Diis opinio insita est,
nee ulla gens usquam est adeo extra leges moresque projecta,
ut non aliquos deos credat."

Chap. XIV. encouraged and promoted Polythelsnu 303

f ess, that there are gods. — Hsec et innumerabilia ex eodem
genere qui videat, nonne cogitur profiteri deos esse?" He
expresses himself to the same purpose in several other parts
of that book. Thus, as was before observed, their very-
disputes against atheism were so managed, as to uphold
and maintain the public polytheism, and were not so much
directed to prove that there is one Supreme God, as that
there are many gods; all of whom are to be honoured and
adored. When Balbus sets himself to shew that the world
is governed by Divine Providence, which he does admir-
ably well, what he proposes to prove is, that it is by the
providence of the gods that the world is administered and
governed. '* Deorum providentia mundum administrari
(c?)." And again, that the world and all its parts were con-
stituted in the beginning, and are at all times administered
and governed by the providence of the gods. *' Dico igitur
providentia deorum, mundum et omnes mundi partes, et
initio constitutas esse, et omni tempore administrari (/»)."
To the same purpose Cicero observes, in his first book of
laws, that " all nature is governed by the power, reason,
authority, mind, divinity of the immortal gods. — Deorum
immortalium, vi, ratione, potestate, mente, numine naturam
omnem regi (^)." And in his second book of laws he lays
it down as a principle, that " the citizens should in the
first place be persuaded, that the gods are the lords and or-
derers of all things, and that whatsoever things are done in
the world are done and directed by their divine power and
authority: that they deserve highly of the whole human race,
and diligently inspect what every man is, what he does,

(o) De nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 29. p. 175. Edit. Davis, 2da.

{fi) Ibid. lib. ii. cap. 29. p. 177.

(y) De Leg. lib. i. cap. 7. p. 25, Edit. Davis, 4ta,

S04 The Philosophers in their serious Discourses Part L

what secret faults he is guilty of, with what dispositions of
mind and what degree of piety he exerciseth himself in the
offices of religion; and that they take an account both of
good and bad men. For," says he, " the minds that have
imbibed these sentiments will not deviate far from that way

of thinking, which is both profitable and true Sit hoc

jam in principio persuasum civibus, dominos esse omnium
rerum et moderatores deos: eaque quae geruntur eorum geri
ditione et numine; eosdemque optime de genere hominum
mereri, et qualis quisque sit, quid agat, quid in se admittat,
qua mente, qua pietate colat religiones, intueri; piorum-
que ct impiorum habere rationem. His enim rebus imbutse
mentes haud sane abhorrebunt ab utili ac vera sententia (r)."
To this may be added a fine passage of Balbus in Cicero's
second book of the nature of the gods, which would have
been admirable, if he had applied it to the worship of the
one true God. " The best worship of the gods,'' saith he,
" and which is at the same time the most chaste, holy,
and full of piety, is that with a pure, upright, incorrupt
mind and voice we should render them the veneration
which is due. — Cultus deorum est optimus, idemque
castissimus atque sanctissimus, plenissimusque pietatis, ut
eos pura, integra, incorrupta et mente et voce veneremur
(*)." Such was the language of the wisest and best of the
antient Pagan philosophers. They generally spoke not of
one God only, but of the gods; and if they sometimes
mentioned God in the singular, as Cicero talks of " aliquis
effector aut moderator tanti operis," they ascribe no more
to him than they do at other times to the gods in the plural;
as if there were many that shared with him in the Divinity,
and were, along with him, "domini omnium rerum et

(r) De. Leg, lib. ii. cap. 7. p. 94, 95.
(*) De nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 28. p. 174.

Chap. XIV. encouraged and promoted Polythels^n. 305

moderatores — the lords and governors of all things: And ac-
cordingly it is usual with them to speak of God and ihe gods
promiscuously; which tended to encourage and confirm the
people in their idolatry and polytheism. It is true, that
after Christianity had diffused its glorious light, the no-
tion of the one Supreme God became more familiar to the
Heathens, and many even of the vulgar were more sensible
of the vanity of polytheism. The philosophers also asserted
the one supreme Deity more clearly and fully than they
had done before. And yet they still continued to express
themselves in a manner which had a tendency to up-
hold and maintain the common established polytheism and
idolatry, derived to them from their ancestors. I shall on
this occasion take particular notice of two very eminent
philosophers, both of whom flourished after Christianity
had made some progress in the world, Epictetus and
Marcus Antoninus.

I shall begin with Epictetus. He often uses the word
God in the singular number, and yet frequently falls into
the polytheistical manner of expression. " Be assured,"
says he in his Enchiridion (?), " that the essential pro-
perty of piety towards the gods is to form right opinions
concerning them, as existing and governing the universe
with goodness and justice. And fix yourself in this reso-
lution to obey them, and willingly to follow them in all
events, as produced by the most perfect understanding:
for thus you will never find fault with the gods, nor ac-
cuse them as neglecting you (w)." Here he makes true
piety consist in entertaining right notions of the gods^ and

(?) Epict. Enchir. cap, 31. Ed. Upton. In the common edi-
tions it is cap. 38.

(u) It is with pleasure I make use of Miss Carter's excellent
translation of this and other passages of Epictetus.

You I. 2 Q

306 The Philosophers in their serious Discourses Part !•

in obeying and following them: and he represents the gods
as governing the world with the most perfect understand-
ing, justice, and goodness. With this may be compared an
admired passage in his Dissertations. " The philosophers
say, that we are first to learn that there is a God, and
that his Providence directs the whole; and that it is im-
possible to conceal from him not only our actions, but
even our thoughts and emotions. We are next to learn
what the gods are, for such as they are found to be, such
must he that would please and obey them, to the utmost
of his power, endeavour to be. — And in all his w^ords and
actions behave as an imitator of God (^)." Here the words
God and gods are used promiscuously. It is undoubtedly
a lesson of great importance first to know that God is, and
next what he is. But Epictetus expresses it thus, that
we are first to learn that God is, or that there is a God,
and next what the gods are. He urges it as a duty, that
a man should in all his words and actions behave as an
imitator of God. The same thing he says with respect to
the gods. " Such as the gods are, such must he that would
please and obey them, to the utmost of his power, en-
deavour to be." He speaks of God's directing the whole
by his Providence: and he had said the same thing of the
gods in still stronger terms, in the passage above quoted
from his Enchiridion. He here likewise observes, that
nothing can be concealed from God: and he elsewhere
makes the same supposition concerning the gods. " Are
not the gods," says he, " every where at the same distance?
Do not they every where equally see what is doing? (z/)"
Speaking of the desires and aversions, he saith, " yield
them up to Jupiter and the other gods: give thyself up to

{x) Dissert. Book ii. chap. 14. s. 2.

(y) Book iv. chap. 4. at the end of that chapter.

Chap, XIV. encouraged and promoted Polytheism, 307

these: let these govern." The title and design of the 13th
chapter of the first book of his Dissertations is to shew,
how every thing may be performed acceptably to the gods:
and he there talks of the laws of the gods as what men
are obliged to obey. When he mentions the celebrated
saying of Socrates, in one place he has it thus, " if it
pleases God, so let it be;" in another, " if it pleases the
gods, so let it be (z)." He supposes reason to be given to
men by the gods (a). And speaking of a man's having
subdued his ill nature, his reviling and effeminacy, and
having acquired good habits, he adds, " these things you
have from yourself and from the gods." Book iv. chap.
4. s. 6.

I shall next produce some passages from that excellent
emperor and philosopher Marcus Antoninus. " If there
are no gods," saith he, "or if they have no regard to
human affairs, why should I desire to live in a world with-
out gods, and without Providence? But gods undoubtedly
there are, and they regard human affairs." What he here
asserts as certain and undoubted is, that there are gods,
and the providence he speaks of is the providence of the
gods (J)). He gives it as an important advice, " In all
things invoke the gods. — !<?' ^Vflcff** 3^k$ htiKuXH (c)." Upon
which Gataker observes, that this is a pious advice if the
Heathen polytheism were separated from it. " Pium moni-

(z) Book i. chap. 29. s. 3. compared with the last chapter of
the Enchiridion.

(a) Book iii. chap. 24. s. 1. This is agreeable to the stoical
maxim, " Prudentiam et mentem a diis ad homines pervenisse.**
Cic. De nat. Deo/, lib. ii. cap. 31.

(J)) Antoninus's Meditations, book ii. s. 11.

308 The Philosophers in their serious Discourses Part L

turn, si ethnicismi ^roXvB-iU resecetur." And the same obser-
vation may be made on many other passages in Antoninus's
Meditations. At the end of his first book, he expresseth his
thankfulness to the gods, for the benefit of education, for
good friends, tutors, parents, virtuous dispositions, for
having been preserved from temptations, and placed in ad-
vantageous circumstances for improvement. These things
he ascribes to the goodness or beneficence of the gods,
S-teiv IvxoU, And in the 40th section of his ninth book he
directs men pray to the gods, as having power to enable us
to do our duty. And he there speaks of the gods as giving
us their assistance, even in things which they have put in
our own power. The whole of what he there says is ad-
mirable, if applied to the one true God. And this, with
other passages of the like kind, especially his giving thanks
in the passage just now mentioned for the advantages he
had been favoured with, have been produced as a proof, that
" this emperor plainly depended on God for sanctifying in-
fluences; and with the deepest humility and simplicity of
heart acknowledges, that he owes to God's preventing
grace in his Providence about him, all those virtuous dis-
positions in which he had any delight or complacency (^)»'*
Thus it is that Christian writers are apt to apply their own
ideas of things, which they borrowed from the Holy Scrip-
tures, to the writings of the Heathen philosophers. But
Antoninus in the passages here referred to makes no men-
tion of the one Supreme God. The prayers for assistance,
the praises and thanksgivings for benefits received, are
rendered not to God, but to the gods. The gods are made
the objects of trust and dependence, and the people are led
to place that confidence in them which is due to God alone.

{d) See the conclusion of the life of M. Antoninus prefixed to
the Glasgow translation of his Meditations, p. 71, 72.

Chap. XIV. encouraged and promoted Polytheism, 30^

And this makes a very remarkable difference between the
precepts and duties of religion as delivered by him, and
those which are prescribed in the Holy Scriptures (e).

(e) It is not improper to observe on this occasion, that it is no
unusual thing for Christian writers in their quotations from
Heathen authors to produce passages relating to the gods, as a
proof that the Heathens acknowledged the government and at-
tributes of the Deity in the Christian sense. An eminent Divine,
whom I have had occasion to mention before, has undertaken to
shew, that by the mere light of their own unassisted reason,
without any help from Revelation and Tradition, the Heathens
" had a knowledge and firm persuasion, that there existed one
underived, eternal, supreme, intelligent Being, Creator and Go-
vernor of the universe, good, placable, a punisher of vice, and
rewarderof virtue, whom they thought it their duty to worship,
to pray to him, to praise him; and this Being they called God*."
He endeavours to prove the several parts of this proposition
distinctly by express testimonies from the Heathen writers.
Most of them are the same that are produced by the learned
Dr. Cudworth, the most remarkable of which are considered
in the course of this work. If it be allowed that some of them
speak of the one true God (the knowledge of whom was, as I
have shewn, communicated from the beginning, though after-
wards amazingly corrupted and depraved) yet still it remains to
be proved, that they derived this merely from the researches of
their own reason, without any assistance from revelation or tra-
dition. And this our learned author strongly asserts, but has not
proved. But, to pass this by at present, what I would now ob-
serve is, that in proving the several parts of the above-men-
tioned proposition, he promiscuously produces passages which
speak of God and of the gods. Thus to prove that they held that
God is omniscient and omnipotent, he produces passages from
Socrates and Plato, in which it is said, that the gods see and
know all things: as also that they have power to do whatever can
be done. To shew that they believed that God governs the world

* Dr. Syke's Principles and Connexion of Natural and Revealed Reli-
Jjion, chap. »v. p. 362, et seq.

510 The Philosophers hi their serious Discjourses Part I.

The passages to be farther produced will set this in a
still clearer light. Antoninus observes, that " our natural
constitution and furniture is intended — to engage us in

by his Providence, he produces passages which ascribe the go-
vernment of the world to the gods. He observes, that " Cicero
well argues, that if we grant that God is an intelligent being,
we must grant, that he directs and governs all things." And yet
Cicero in that passage, as he himself quotes it, speaks not of
God in the singular number, but of the gods. " Si concedimus
intelligentes esse deos, concedimus etiam providentes, et rerum
quidem maximarum." De nat. Deor. lib. ii. When he comes to
prove that part of his proposition, that they believed the one
God, the Creator and Governor of the world, to be good, placa-
ble, the punisher of vice, and the rewarder of virtue, he pro-
duces passages to shew, that " the Heathens believed that the
gods are placable; but that however placable the gods were
deemed, yet they were looked upon as the avengers of evil, and
the rewarders of good actions,'* In like manner when he is to
shew, that the Heathens maintained that God is to be wor-
shipped, he expresses it thus, that " the sentiments they main-
tained concerning the gods must necessarily lead men to pay
them a proper worship, to prayer, praise, thankfulness, and
and submission to their will; and that effect was produced; and
these duties were acknowledged to be due." And accordingly
most of the passages he mentions relate to the worshipping of
the gods. And in general it may be observed, that when he pro-
poses to prove that the Heathens had a knowledge and persuasion
of the attributes of the one true God, most of the testimonies he
he brings relate not to the one Supreme God, but to the gods;
which shews, that though the idea of one God was not utterly
extinguished among the Pagans, yet it was generally confounded
with a multiplicity of idol deities, to whom they applied the pe-
culiar attributes and worship due to the one Supreme God; and
that Jupiter, whom they vulgarly regarded as the supreme, and
to whom some of the passages cited by the Doctor immediately
refer, was really no more than the chief of their idol deities. And
even among the philosophers themselves, God and the world
was frequently confounded together, as making up one divinity.

Chap, XIV. encouraged and promoted Polytheism, 311

kindness to all men, and in obedience to the gods (y)."
And in another passage to the same purpose he represents
it as our duty, while life continues, " to worship and
praise or celebrate the gods, 3-8»5 (riZuv kxi iv^v\^iif, and to do
good to men (^)." And again, "love mankind," says he,
"and be obedient to the gods (A)." To obey God, and do
good to men, is certainly a noble summary of our duty.
What a pity it is that such fine precepts and sentiments
should be weakened and debased by applying them to a
multiplicity of gods! For who are these gods whom we are
bound to obey? Or, how far are we obey them? This is to
cast the mind into perplexing uncertainties, and to en-
courage polytheism.

Antonine urges to meekness from the example of the
gods. " The gods," saith he, " exercise meekness and pa-
tience towards men, and even aid them in the pursuit of some
things, as of health, wealth, glory. So gracious are they! You
may be so too (i)." And he elsewhere supposes " the gods
to bear with a wicked world through a long eternity (/^)."

He frequently represents the gods as the causes and or-
derers of all things. " Does any thing befal me?" says he,
" I accept it, as referring it to the gods, the fountain of all
things, from whom all things are ordered in a fixed se-
ries (/)." Gataker, in his note upon this passage, produces
several texts of Scripture to shew, that pious men ascribe
all things, whatsoever events befal them, to God. But there

(/) Anton. Med. book iii. s. 9.

{g) Ibid, book v. s. 33.

{h) Ibid, book vii. s. 3 1 .

(i) Ibid, book ix. s. 1 1. et s. 27.

{k) Ibid, book vii. s. 70.

(/) Ibid, book viii. s. 23. In this and other passages here cited,
I make use of the Glasgow translation of Antoninus's Medita-
tions, which appears to me to be a faithful and elegant one.

312 The Philosophers in their serious Discourses PartL

is this difference between the doctrine of the Scriptures on
that head and that of Antonine, that what they teach us to
refer tfi God as the Supreme Disposer, he referreth to the
gods. In the beginning of his tenth book, sect. 1. he gives
excellent advices about our being satisfied with the state we
are in, whatsoever it is, and being pleased in every circum-
stance: but here also he speaks in the polytheistic strain.
*' Persuade thyself," saith he, "that thou hast all things: all'"
is right and well with thee, and comes to thee from the
gods. And all shall be right and well for thee which they
please to give, and which they are about to give for the
safety of the perfect animal." Here he speaks of all things
as coming to us from the gods; that all is right which they
please to give or appoint: and represents them as ordering
all things for the safety of the universe, which he there calls
the most perfect animal (;n), and describes by characters
proper to the Divinity, "the good, the just, the fair, the
parent of all things, the supporter, the container, the sur-
rounder of all things."

He has several other passages to the same purpose. "As
to what happens," says he, " in the common course of na-
ture, the gods are not to be blamed: they never do wrong
willingly nor unwillingly (?^)." And he gives it as the cha-
racter of a just man, that " he folio we th the gods with sim-
plicity (o)." To those who ask, " Where have you seen the
gods? Or, whence are you assured they exist, that you thus
worship them." He answers, " first they are visible, even to
the eye." This probably relates to the heavenly bodies,
which were regarded as gods by the Stoics. He adds, " My

(m) In like manner he calls the universe or the world an ani-
mal, book iv s. 23 et 40.
(w) Book xii. s. 12.
(o) Ibid. s. 27.

Chap. XIV. encouraged and promoted Polytheism. 313

own soul I cannot see, and yet I re^rence it: and thus as I
experience continually the power of the gods, I know both
surely that they are, and worship them (/?)." This is well
argued, if applied to the one true God, whose power, though
he be invisible to the bodily eye, extends through every
part of the universe, and who is continually present to all
his creatures. But the applying it to the gods, as if we were
equally sure of the existence of a plurality of deities, and
of their being every where present, spoils the force of the
reasoning, and the beauty of a noble sentiment {([).

(fi) Book xii. s. 28.

(y) A late ingenious author who has carried his apologies for
the Heathens and their religion very far, taking notice that the
emperor Marcus Antoninus frequently speaks of gods in the
plural, cautions his reader not be surprized at it; for that *' this
phrase was common with the Pagans and the Hebrews*."
Where he intimates that it was as common among the He-
brews as among the Pagans to talk of gods in the plural. A
strange instance this of the power of prejudice, when engaged
in the support of a favourite hypothesis. The contrary must, I
think, be evident to any one that ever compared the Jewish and
Pagan writings. As to the Pagans, a multiplicity of deities every
where appears in their history, poetry, philosophical and moral
writings, and runs through the whole of their religion and laws.
But the great and fundamental principle of the Jewish religion,
expressly prescribed by their laws, and which appears in all their
writings, historical, poetical, moral, and devotional, is, that there
is one only God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, who
alone is to be worshipped and adored. And the many gods of the
Heathens are spoken of with contempt and abhorrence. It is
true, that one of the Hebrew names of God, Elohim, seems to
be of a plural form, and is sometimes attributed to the creatures:
but besides that the most peculiar name of God, Jehovah, is al-
ways singular, the word Elohim, when applied to the one true

• Cheval. Ramsay's Principles of Nat. and Rev. Rel. vol. ii. p, 448.

Vol. I. 2 R

*'""'*"9

314 The Philosophers in their serious Discourses' Part I,

That celebrated philosopher Plutarch, who also flourish-
ed after the Gospel was published to the world, frequently
falls into the same manner of expression. I shall only men-
tion one passage. It is in his Consolation to AppoUonius*
*' We do not come into life," says he, " as if we could pre-
Bcribe and make what laws concerning it we please, but
must obey the things which are appointed by the gods which
govern the universe, and must submit to the decrees of fate
and providence.— 7r«i(ro'^£»o< to7? ^lecrtrecyfizitiq vTTo T»y ru oA«

Whosoever impartially considers the passages which have
been produced from some of the most eminent Heathen phi-
losophers, must, I think, be obliged to acknowledge, that
their way of representing things in their most serious dis-
courses, tended naturally to take off the attention of the
people from the one Supreme God, and to lead them to a
plurality of deities. Many have spoke with admiration of
the piety which breathes in the stoical precepts. And any
one that reads the account given of them by the learned

God, is almost constantly joined with a verb singular; and ac-
cordingly is in the New Testament always rendered by the word
^toii God: whereas, according to this gentleman's way of repre-
senting it, we might expect to meet with the word B-ioi, gods, as
often in the New Testament as in the Pagan writings. The g:ods
indeed are sometimes mentioned there, when speaking of the
Pagan polytheism, but it is with a view to condemn it. Thus, St.
Paul saith, " We know there is none other God but one. For
though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in
earth (as there be gods many and lords many)" where he seems
evidently to refer to the Pagan polytheism; *' but to us there is
but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by
him." 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5, 6.
(r) Plut. Oper. torn. ii. p. lU, Edit. Francof. 1620,

Chap. XIV. encouraged and promoted Polytheism, 315

Gataker in his praeloquium or preliminary discourse to his
excellent Latin translation and commentary on the Medita-
tions of Antoninus, will be apt at first view to look upon it
as a summary of the principal duties towards God prescrib-
ed in the Holy Scriptures. But there is this essential dif-
ference between them; that the duties which the Scriptures
require us to exercise towards the one true God, they di-
rect to be paid to the gods, and thereby impair and corrupt
the noblest sentiments, and spread confusion through that
which they themselves acknowledge to be the most impor-
tant part of our duty. And indeed they seem to have had
no small confusion in their ideas on this subject. Some
might be apt to think, that by the gods they understood the
one God under different names and manifestations: which
was a notion sometimes made use of to put a plausible co-
lour on the Pagan polytheism. But any one that carefully
considers the passages which have been mentioned will find
that in most of them this pretence cannot be admitted, and
that the gods are plainly spoken of as distinct really existent
divine beings. In a note of the Glasgow translation on that
passage of Antoninus, where he says, '* the sun is formed
for a certain office, and so are the other gods (5)," it is ob-
served, that " the better sects of the Heathen philosophers,
besides the one Supreme original Deity, conceived great
numbers of superior natures, invested with great powers of
government, in certain parts of the universe — and that the
Heathens called those superior beings gods, and the Chris-
tians called them angels (0*" ^^^ nothing is plainer, than
that the philosophers ascribe things to the gods, which no
way agree to the idea the Scripture teaches us to form of

(«) Anton. Medit. book viii. s. 19.

(r) Glasgow translation of Antoninus, p. 299,

316 The Philosophers in their serious Discourses Pakt I.

angels, and which properly belong to the one true God. In
several of the passages above-mentioned, the gods are re-
presented as the causes and governors of the universe, or-
dering and directing all things, extending their power and
providence to every thing, the smallest as well as the
greatest, as every where present and knowing all things, not
only all men's actions, but even their most secret thoughts,
as the fountain of all good things, and the disposers of all
events, to whom we owe the most absolute subjection, re-
signation, and obedience, in whose appointments we must
always acquiesce, being satisfied that they never can do
wrong, and that they administer all things with the most
perfect understanding, righteousness, and goodness: that it is
our duty to worship and adore them; that to them we must
offer up our prayers, and most devoutly and thankfully as-
cribe the praise of every good thing which befalleth us;
that we must refer all things to them and to their will, and
in them must place our confidence and trust.

The censures therefore which the learned Dr. Cudworth
passeth upon the poets, may be justly applied to the most
celebrated philosophers. " That they made the theology of
the Pagans look aristocratically — ^by their speaking so much
of the gods in general, and without distinction, and attri-
buting the government of the whole to them in common, as
if it were managed and carried on by a common council
and republic of gods (w), wherein all things were determin-

(m) Balbus, in Cicero's second book of the Nature of the Gods,
asserts, that " the world is governed by the council of the gods.—
Deorum consilio mundum administrari." Cap. 29. p. 177. Edit.
Davis, 2da. To the same purpose he represents the gods as
joined together by a kind of civil consociation, and governing
the world as a common city or republic. " Inter se quasi civili
Gonciliatione et socieiate conjunctos, unum mundum ut comma*

Chap. XIV. encouraged and promoted Poli^theism, 51f

ed by a majority of voices, and as if their Jupiter or Su-
preme God were no more among them than a speaker of
the house of lords or commons, or the chairman of a com-
mittee (^)." The same learned author acknowledges con-
cerning the Stoics, that " they often derogate from the
honour of the Supreme Deity, by attributing such things
to the gods in common as the donors of them, which plainly
belong to the Supreme God (5/)."

Thus the philosophers, by talking of God and the gods
promiscuously, contributed to confound the notions of the
people, and countenanced and confirmed them in their po-
lytheism, and in their veneration for the popular deities.

nem rempublicam atque urbem aliquam regentes." Ibid. cap. 31.
p. 179.

(r) Cudworth's Intel. System, p. 357.

ly) Ibid. p. 427.

318 The Philosophers referred People Part I.

CHAPTER XV.

Some farther considerations to shew how little was to be expected from the phi- ,
losophers for recovering the Pagans from their polytheism and idolatiy. They
referred the people for instruction in divine matters to the oracles, which were
managed by the priests. This shewn particularly concerning Socrates, Plato,
and the Stoics. It was an universal maxim among them, That it was the duty
of every wise and good man to conform to the religion of his country. And not
only did they worship the gods of their respective countries, according to the
Established rites, and exhort others to do so, but when they themselves took
upon them the character of legislators, and drew up plans of laws and of the
best forms of government, not the worship of the one true God, but polytheism^
was the religion they proposed to establish.

It is a farther instance of the philosophers countenancing
the popular idolatries and superstitions, that, except the
Epicureans and others who denied a providence, they ge-
nerally encouraged divination and the oracles. Socrates
himself was very remarkable this way. Xenophon mentions
it as a proof of his piety, that he openly used divination;
and speaking of those who thought that the gods signified
things to men by birds, omens, presages, and sacrifices, he
says, that Socrates thought so too (a). He frequently ad-
vised men to follow the direction of the oracles, especially
in matters of religion (J?). And above all he shewed a great

(a) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 1. s. 2, 3.

(b) Socrates advised him that would know things above the
reach of human wisdom to apply himself to divination. For that
that man would never be destitute of the counsel and direction
of the gods, who should know and observe by what way they sig-
nified things to men. Xen. Memorab. lib. iv. cap. 7. s. 10. This
shews the sense he had of the great need men stood in of a di-
rection from above in divine matters, which also appears from

Chap. XV. for Instruction in Religion to the Oracles, 319

veneration for the Delphian oracle. Xenophon observes,
that when any persons enquired of the Pythian oracle what
they should do with respect to sacrifices, and the religion
of their ancestors, or any thing of that nature, the oracle
was wont to answer them, that they would act piously, if
they performed these things according to the laws of their
respective cities; and he informs us, that Socrates, in mat-
ters relating to the gods, T<i 5r§o$ ts? S-j^j, both spoke and
acted conformably to that direction of the oracle: that he
both did this himself, and exhorted others to do so: and
looked upon those who acted otherwise as vain and super-
stitious persons, TFi^n^yag^ persons impertinently busy, or
that meddled with things which did not belong to them. A
remarkable instance of this we have in his excellent conver-
sation with Euthydemus before referred to. When this
young man expressed his concern, that he knew not how to
make worthy returns to the gods for the many benefits re-
ceived from them, Socrates bids him not be discouraged at
this: " For," says he, " thou seest the god at Delphi, when
any one asks him, how he may do that which is acceptable
to the gods, answers, by worshipping them according to the
law of the city — vo^ia TroXiui (c)." Agreeable to this is the
description he gives of piety, and of a pious man. After
having observed, that piety is a most excellent and beauti-
ful thing, he describes the pious man to be one that ho-
noureth the gods: but that it is not lawful for any man to
worship the gods as he himself thinks fit. There are laws
according to which it is to be done: and he who observes

several other passages. But it is a mortifying thing to think, that
a person of his great understanding should send men for know-
ing the Divine Will, to what was then called divination, and to
the oracles of the gods,
(c) Xen. Memorab. lib. iv. cap. 3. s. 16.

S20 Socrates practised and recommended Part L

those laws may know how the gods ought to be honoured.
He concludes therefore, that he that honoureth the gods ac-
cording to the laws, honoureth them as he ought: and he
who honoureth the gods as he ought, is a truly pious man.
This is the substance of Socrates's discourse on this head
as recorded by Xenophon (<f ). Thus we see, it was in So-
crates's opinion essential to true piety to worship the gods,
and to worship them in the manner and according to the"
rites established by the laws. And among the Attic laws
this was one: " Let it be a law among the Athenians for
ever sacred and inviolable, always to render due homage in
public towards the gods, and native heroes, according to
the usual custom of the country, and with all possible sin-
cerity to offer in private first fruits with anniversary
cakes (^)." And it was before shewn, that every citizen of
Athens was obliged to take a solemn oath to conform to the
religion of his country.

It is a great mistake to suppose, as some have done, that
Socrates endeavoured to draw men off from the public reli^
gion, or from the worship of the popular deities. Dacier, in
his introduction to Socrates's apology, says, that " Socrates
attacked the superstition of the Athenians, and the plurality
of their gods, by exposing the ridiculousness of the fables
with which their theology was filled, and by that means en-
deavoured to bring them to the knowledge of the one true
God." And it is true, that Socrates disapproved the literal
sense of some of the poetical fables, which raised a preju-
dice against him in the minds of the Athenians; yet he sup-
posed those fables to contain a hidden and mysterious

{d) Xen. Memorab. lib. iv. cap. 6. s. 2, 3, 4.

(0 Potter's Greek Antiq. vol. i. p. 136. 1st Edit.

GttAP. XV. the public Polytheism. 3S1

meaning (/), and that the poets, as well as the diviners and de-
liverers of oracles, were inspired by a divine afflatus. This ap-^
pears from the passages produced above^ chap* vi. to which I
refer the reader. He never dissuaded the people from wor-
shipping the gods appointed by the laws. The accusation
brought against him by Anytus and Mclitus was, that he did
not believe those to be gods which the city believed, and that
he introduced other new gods. But against this charge Xeno-^
phon zealously vindicates him, by observing, that he openly
sacrificed to the gods, frequently at home, and often at
the public altars of the city (^). And Socrates himself, in
his apology to his judges, declares, that he wonders how
Melitus came to know that he did not esteem them to be
gods whom the city regarded as such, since many had seen
him sacrificing on the common festivals, and at the public
altars; and Melitus himself might have seen him if he had
pleased Qi). He appeals to Apollo's oracle in his own de-
fence, of whom he speaks with great veneration. And in
his prison he composed a hymn to Apollo, which he himself
mentions in his last discourse to his friends on the day of
his death, (i).

What hath been observed concerning Socrates, holds
equally with respect to Plato. In the fourth book of his
Republic he refers to Apollo at Delphi, as having made the
most excellent constitutions in religious matters: and in-
stances in those relating to temples, sacrifices, and the other
rites observed in the worship of the gods, daemons, and he-
roes,— and whatsoever things are necessary to propitiate

(/) See the learned Mr. Des Veaux*s life of Julian, vol. iL
p. 232.

(jg) Xen. Memor. lib. i. cap. i. s. 1. 3.

Qi) Ibid. p. 369. Edit. Sympson, 2da.

(0 Plato's Phaedo Oper. p. 376. H. Edit. Fie. Lugd. 159'0.
. Vo*. I, 2 S

322 Plato urgeth the Worship of the Gods Part I,

them. And then adds, " these things we do not know,
and in ordering or administering the city, we will, if
we be wise, obey no other, nor use any other guide or
instructor than the patron god, or the god of our country.'*
By which he means the Delphian Apollo, whom he had
mentioned just before. " »5cv/ kwea -sroiTif^iBx e«v vSv e^^^g?
»^« ;(jg>jo"«/^e^« «|«y>jTi) «AA<» vi Ta -TTUT^tcf) [^iZ] (i4)." And in his
sixth book of Laws he saith, that " the laws concerning di-
vine things were to be sought for from Delphi, and that of
these the priests were to be the interpreters (/)." In his
tenth book of Laws he blames those men as putting impious
notions into the heads of young persons who taught them
that they ought not to look upon those to be gods, whom
the law required them to regard as such. " eot Uk hrm B-iSt
ctyi 0 vcfxoi wgof«T7«i." And he represents it as the duty and
office of a legislator to punish those who do not believe the
gods to be such as the law declares them to be (m). He
there all along treats those persons as atheists, who did not
acknowledge the gods appointed by law, and takes upon
himself the defence of them. In his Epinomis, he supposes
many of the gods and daemons to have been made known
by dreams, prophecy, divination, voices heard by persons
in health or in sickness, or even at the hour of their depar-
ture; and that these things have given rise to the institution
of many religious rites observed both privately and pub-
lickly; and he would not have any of the rites founded upon
them to be neglected or altered. He adds, that a legislator
who hath the least share of understanding will not make
the most minute alteration in any of these things, or endea-
vour to turn his city to a less certain way of worship; and

(A-) Plato Oper. p. 448. B, C.
(/) Ibid. p. 616. G.
(m) Ibid. p. 666.

Chap. XV. appointed by the Laws. «2$

he will not attempt to innovate in any thing relating to the
sacrifices prescribed by the laws of the country (ji). This
may help us to judge of the truth of Dacier's assertion in
his discourse on Plato, and which he repeats in his life,
that " Plato endeavours to re-establish natural religion, by
opposing Paganism which was the corruption of it; and that
in order to cure men of superstition and idolatry, which
then reigned so much in the world, Plato forgets nothing
which might induce them to render God a rational wor-
shiy (o)."

All the other philosophers without exception concurred
in the same sentiments, that every nation should worship
the gods according to the established laws and customs, to

(n) Plato Oper. p. 702. E.

(o) Ficinus, who was both a great admirer of that philosopher
and thoroughly versed in his writings, says, that " Plato, in imi-
tation of the more aniient theologers, and all the Platonists, re-
ceived the histories of oracles as true, and endeavoured to support
it by arguments: that both in his Phaedrus and Timaeus he shews
great faith in them. In his Phaedrus he counts all human wisdom
to be as nothing in comparison of that which is obtained from
oracles and divine madness. And in his Timaeus he says, that
with relation to divine matters a philosopher ought not to affirm
any thing but in as far as it is agreeable to and confirmed by the
divine oracles." Ficinus adds, that there are many things in
Plato of this kind. " Profecto et ipse Plato antiquiores theologos
imitatus, et Platonici omnes, oraculorum historiam ubique tan-
quam veram accipiunt, rationibusque confirmant. Mitto quan-
tam his in Phaedro adhibeat fidem: quantam et in Timaeo: in
Phaedro quidem humanam sapientiam prae ilia quae ab oraculis
furoribusque divinis habetur nihili pendens: in Timaeo autem
dicens eatenus a philosopho de rebus divinis affirmandum esse
quatenus divinis oraculis confirmetur. Mitto quam plurimaapud
Platonem similia.'* Ficin. Argument, in apologiam Socratis.
Plat. Oper. p. 797. E, F. Edit. Lugd. 1590.

324 All the Philosophers were for conforming Part I.

which also every private person ought in his own practice
to conform. The first precept in the golden verses of Py-
thagoras, which though not composed by himself, are al-
lowed to contain a summary of the Pythagoric doctrine, is
this: " That men should in the first place worship the im-
mortal gods, as they arc appointed by the law. —

** *A'^xvtirHi fiiv vr^Sru Bin? yof^tt) ai hciKUvr«ii

jVhere it may be observed, that there is not the least men-
tion made of worshipping the one Supreme God. Cicero
expresseth the sense of all the Pagan philosophers as well
as legislators, when he saith, " Majorum instituta tueri sa-
cris capremoniisque retinendis sapientis est ( p )." That it
is the part or duty of a wise man to maintain the institu-
tions of our ancestors, and to retain the sacred rites and
ceremonies. Cotta in Cicero's third book De natura De-
orum, though he takes great liberties in exposing some of
the fables concerning the gods, yet speaking of the opinions
which they had received from their ancestors, relating to
the immortal gods and their religious rites and ceremonies,
declares that he always had defended them, and always
would; and that no man's discourse, whether learned or
unlearned, should ever move him to forsake the opinion
derived from their ancestors concerning the worship of the
gods. " Ego vero eas semper defendam, semperque defendi:
nee me ex ea opinione quam a majoribus accepi, de cultu
deorum immortalium ullius unquam oratio, aut docti, aut
jndocti, movebit (^)." The excellent Epictetus represents it
as a duty incumbent upon every one to offer up libations and
sacrifices and first fruits according to the customs or rites

(fi ) De Divinat. lib. ii. cap. 72. p. 295. Edit. Davies,
( ?) De nat. Deer. lib. iii. cap. 2. p. 260.

Chap. XV. to the Religion of their Counti^y, S2^

of his country, ««t<» txtut^hc (r). Plutarch has several pas*
sages to the same purpose; and he himself was initiated in
the sacred rites at Delphi, and was a priest of Apollo.
And to add no more, that great and good emperor and phi-
losopher Marcus Antoninus was remarkably strict in the
worship of the gods, and in the observation of the sacred
ceremonies. In a time of public calamity when the plague
raged in Italy, and the war broke out with the Quadi and
Marcomanni, he endeavoured to appease the gods by a
great variety of sacrifices; and was no less liberal in his
thanksgivings to them, when he met with victory and
success. This occasioned that jest upon him, which Am-
mianus Marcellinus informs us was handed down to his
time. " The white oxen to Marcus Caesar, if thou con-
quercst we perish (*)."

Not only did the philosophers urge the people to con-
form to the religion already established by the laws of their
respective countries, but when they took upon them the
character of legislators, and gave plans of such laws and
constitutions, as appeared to them most agreeable to rea-
son, and to be most for the benefit of mankind, with re-
gard to religion as well as civil matters, they did not
prescribe to the people the worship of the one true God,
the Creator of the universe, or lay this as the basis of their
religious constitutions, as the lawgiver of the Hebrews
did; but the whole scheme of the laws and religion they
proposed turned upon a multiplicity of deities. The most
celebrated of the philosophical speculative legislators was
Plato. But whatever notions he himself had of the Supreme
Being, the first principle and cause of all things, he did not
propose him to the people as the object of their public
worship, and of the popular adoration and devotions, be-

(r) Epict. Enchir. cap. 31. Edit. Upton.

(*) Ammian. Marcell. lib. 25. p. 427. Paris 1681.

526 The Worship of the one true God not prescribed PartI.

cause what he is, and how he is to be worshipped, is not
to be described or declared. He begins his eighth book of
Laws with observing, that as to what relates to religion,
and to the solemn festivals, what sacrifices it would be best
and properest for the city to offer, and to what gods they
should be offered, this ought to be regulated with the ad-
vice of the Delphian oracle. He himself there proposes
twelve sacred festivals to be solemnized, one in each
month, to the twelve deities from whom the several tribes
should be denominated. He speaks also of the solemnities
of the celestial and terrestrial gods. He frequently asserts
the divinity of the stars. At the latter end of his seventh
book of Laws, he calls the sun and moon the great gods;
and in his Epinomis he says, " one of these two things
must be allowed: either we must say, and that most right-
ly, that the stars are gods, or else that they are the images,
or as it were the statues of the gods, formed and fashioned
by the gods themselves (0«" And soon after he calls them
** the first and greatest visible gods, who are most to be
honoured, and who with a most acute sight behold all
things." And he pronounces, that " those ought to be ac-
counted very bad men, who do not openly declare to the
people those gods which are manifest to our eyes" [by which
he understands the stars, whom a little before he had called
the greatest visible gods] " or who suffer them to be ne-
glected, and left without sacrifices, and the honours which

(?) It is to be observed that he does not call them the images
of God, as some have represented his sense, but the images of
the gods, i. e. of the gods that inhabit or animate them, and who
fabricated them for themselves. And I think Ficinus*s observa-
tion a just one, that Plato calls the souls of the stars gods, and
their bodies the images of the gods. " Appellat animas stellarum
decs, eorum vero corpora deorum simulacra." Argum. in Epin.
See Plat. Oper. Ficin. p. 70 1 . H. et p. 845. Lugd. 1 590.

Chap. XV. by the philosophical Lawgivers, S2f

are due to them." And therefore he directs that sacrifices
should be offered, and solemn days celebrated to their ho-
nour (w).

Steuchus Eugubinus, who was very well acquainted with
Plato's philosophy, and had a high esteem for it, observes,
that Plato hath said nothing about the Supreme Deity in
his book of Laws, as being not be known or described
either as to name or nature, nor hath he set down any thing
about his worship: that he thought it not lawful to publish
to the vulgar the Parent of the universe. — For not under-
standing the things that are said of him, they would be apt
to deride them, as being things remote from popular cus-
tom, and from their gross conceptions: that therefore
treating of laws which ought to be published to the peo-
ple, he speaks nothing of this great unsearchable Divinity,
and proposeth only the worship of heaven to the people, to
whom he must speak only of that which they esteemed
certain religion {x^. It is probable that when Eugubinus
mentions Plato as proposing the worship of heaven to the
people, he not only refers to his frequently recommending
the worship of the heavenly bodies, but has in view that
passage in his Epinomis, w^here he mentions heaven as the
Supreme God, the author of all good things, whom men
as well as all the other gods should worship and adore. A
man may call it, says he, either the world, or Olympus,
or heaven, provided he considers its various operations,
that it makes the stars revolve in their several courses, and
causes the diiferences of times and seasons, and provides
proper aliment for all animals ( «/ ). Ficinus, than whom
no man was better acquainted with the works of Plato,

{u) Argum. in Epin. See Plat. Oper. Ficin. p. 702. F.
(x) Stench. Eugub. de perenni Philosophia,.lib. v. cap. 3o
{if) Plat. Oper. ubi supra, p. 699. ^

328 The Worship of the one true God not prescribed Part I^

and who carried his admiration of him to a degree of en*
thusiasm, puts the question, Why Plato openly asserts only
the celestial gods, viz. the heavenly bodies? To which he
answers, That it was " because the contemplation of the
higher deities is altogether foreign to the matter of laws;
and by mentioning the celestial gods, which are moved and
employed in their several proper offices, he sufficiently inti-
mates, that a higher god is to be sought after, who being
himself unmoved moves them all, and as their common
leader assigns each of them their respective functions.—
Quoniam superiorum contemplatio est a legum materia ad-
modiim aliena, et per coelestes deos qui moventur, et propriis
mancipantur officiis, satis admonet superiorem esse quaeren-
dum, qui et immotus ipse moveat omnia et communis dux
propria singulis assignat officia (2)." But since Plato
meddles with religion in his laws, and sets himself to prove
the existence and providence of the gods against the
atheists; and since he thought fit to give directions to the
people as to the gods they were to worship; he ought cer-
tainly to have clearly directed them to the acknowledg-
ment and adoration of the one Supreme God, and to have
insisted principally upon this as of the highest importance.
And his taking so little notice of this, and yet so strongly-
recommending the worship of other deities, especially of
the heavenly bodies, and at the same time declaring against
any alteration of the laws and customs relating to religion,
and the worship of the gods, shews that little was to be
hoped for from him for reforming the popular superstition
and idolatry. He rather established and confirmed it (a).

(z) See P^icinus's argument on Plato's tenth book of Laws.
Plat. Oper. p. 841. F.

(a) Origen seems to have had Plato particularly in view when
he finds fault with those who, notwithstanding their sublime

Chap. XV. by the phUosiophtcal Lawgivers^ 32'9

In like manner Cicero In his excellent treatise of laws,
which contains, according to Dr. Middleton (^), a just ac-
count of his sentiments, and where he appears in the cha-
racter both of a philosopher and lawgiver, gives no law re-
lating to the worship of the one Supreme God, but expressly
prescribes the worship of a plurality of deities; both of
those who were always accounted celestial; by which he
refers to the gods who were called Dii consentes et selecti,
and Dii majorum gentium; and of those whose merits had
placed them in heaven; such as Hercules, Liber, iEscula-
pius, Castor and Pollux, and Quirinu^ as also of the
houshold gods: and binds it as a duty upon the people in
these things to follow the religion of their ancestors, (c).

It sufficiently appeareth from the observations which
have been made, how little was to be expected from the
greatest and best philosophers for leading the people into
the right knowledge and worship of the one true Supreme
God, and recovering them from the idolatry and polytheisia
in which they were involved.

What has been observed relates principally to the philo-

speculations concerning the ineffable first good, joined in the
common idolatry — and he applies to them that of St. Paul,
Rom. i. 18. that "when they knew God, they glorified him not
as God, but became vain in their imaginations or reasonings.'*
Cont. Cels. lib. vi. p. 276, 277 Edit. Spenser. And elsewhere he
observes concerning those who were puffed up with the know-
ledge they had learned from philosophy, that they frequented
the temples and statues of the gods, and the mysteries, no less
than the most illiterate of the vulgar, and led others to do so:
and that they were not ashamed to address themselves to inani-
mate things, as gods or the images of the gods: in which the
most simple Christian acted better than they. Ibid, lib. vii,
p. 362.

(A) Middleton's Life of Cicero, vol. ii. p. 623."Edit. Dublin,
(c) Cic. de Leg. lib. ii. cap. 8. p. lOO. Edit. Davis, 2da.
Vol. I. 2 T

330 The worship of the one true God not prescribed Part I.

sophers of Greece and Rome. But it may not be improper
here to add something concerning the famous Chinese phi-
losopher Confucius. It appears from the accounts given us
of his life and writings by the learned authors of Confucius
Sinarum Philosophus, sive Scientia Sinensis latinc cxposita,
and who seem to be very nmch prejudiced in his favour,
that he was a great upholder of the antient superstitions,
and would not suffer the least deviation from them. He'
blames those who did not worship according to the accus-
tomed rites, but were ambitious to sacrifice to a higher
kind of spirits than their condition allowed. For, according
to the Chinese laws, none but the emperor was to offer sa-
crifices with solemn rites to heaven, and to the earth. The
tributary kings and princes, who were next in dignity to the
emperor, were allowed to sacrifice to the mountains and
rivers, or to their spirits: the inferior governors to inferior
things; and so on: every one was to offer sacrifices according
to the rank of the offerer, and of the spirits to which he sacri-
ficed. Confucius was for having this order strictly observ-
ed {dy. from whence it is evident, that he seems to have
considered religion chiefly in a political view. By heavea
the followers of Confucius of the learned sect generally un-
derstand the visible material heaven, and by the spirit of
heaven its physical virtue and efficacy void of intelligence.
Thus Confucius's nephew Cu Su seems to have understood
it, as appears from a passage in the book Chum Yum (tf).
But let us suppose, that Co.nfucius himself bv heaven and
the spirit of heaven understood the one Supreme God, the
sacrificing to him seems not to be a religion he designed for
the people, but to be reserved for the emperor himself, and

(rf) Scient. Sin. lib. iii. part 1. p. 21. et part 2. p. 3, 4
(e)lbid. lib. ii.p. 87.

Chap. XV. hy the philosophical Lawgivers, 331

forbidden to inferior persons; who were only allowed to
worship those things of nature, and the spirits of them,
which were supposed to be of inferior dignity. And bv the
spirits of the things, according to the Chinese philosophy,
are to be understood their operative virtues, which are
only the finest parts of the things themselves. This is plainly
proved by F. Longobarcli, whom I have before cited. And
the learned Jesuits who published the Scientia Sinensis own,
that Confucius supposes the spirits to be intimately united
to the things of nature, and that they cannot be separated
from them (/).

(/) Sclent. Sin. lib, ii. p. 51.

53^ The Philosophers employed their Learning and Part I.

CHAPTER XVI.

Farther proofs of the philosophers countenancing and encouraging the popular
idolatry and polytheism. They eraplo} ed their learning and abilities to defend
and justify it. The worship of inferior deities was recommended by them under
pretence that it tended to the honour of the Supreme. Some of the most emi-
nent of them endeavoured to colour over the absurd est part of the Pagan
poetic theology by allegorizing the most indecent fables. They even apologiz-
ed for the Egyptian animal worship, which the generality of the vulgar Pagans
in other nations ridiculed. Their plea for idolatry and image-worship as neces-
sary to keep the people from falling into irreligion and atheism. Some of the
most refined philosophei's were against any external worship of the Supi'cme
God.

oO far were the philosophers from taking proper methods
to recover the people from the common idolatry and poly-
theism, that they employed their learning and abilities to
uphold the popular idolatry, and to find out the most plau-
sible colours for justifying and recommending it.

It is an observation which has been often made, that
after Christianity appeared to bless the world with its sa-
lutary light, the philosophers were the principal supporters
of declining Paganism. They put on an appearance of ex-
traordinary piety, and professed to look upon the things of
nature with religious eyes, so as to behold God in them.
They alleged that the whole world is to be regarded as a
sacred thing, as being nothing but God himself displayed
in his works: that mens devotions therefore were not to be
huddled up in one general acknowledgment of a supreme
invisible Being, the Maker and Governor of this vast uni-
verse, but that all the several powers and virtues, and ma-
nifestations of the Deity in the world, considered singly
and apart by thcmbelves, should be called by several dis-
tinct names, and made so many distinct objects of their
veneration: and therefore they spoke of the things of nature,

Chap. XVI. Abilities to support the Pagan Idolatry, 333

and parts of the world, as so many distinct gods and god-
desses. Thus it is that the very learned Dr. Cudworth, who
was far from being prejudiced against them, represents
their sentiments (^). By such pretences as these they en-
deavoured to put a fair gloss upon the most stupid idolatry,
even when, through the prevailing light of the Gospel,
many of the vulgar came to be sensible of the absurdity of

it (A).

None of the Pagan philosophers were thought to have
sublimer notions of the Divinity, than the Platonists and
Pythagoreans, those of them especially who lived after
the Christian revelation was published to the world, yet
none were more strenuous asserters of the worship of in-
ferior deities. And indeed the whole scheme and system
of that philosophy tended to support and encourage it.
They held that the Supreme Being is so far above us, as
not to be approached even in thought: and that the highest
class of gods next to the Supreme are so far removed
from us, that there is no immediate communication be-
tween them and mankind: but that there are vast num-
bers of intermediate powers dwelling in the airy regions
between the highest aether and our earth, by whom our
desires and prayers are carried up to the gods, and to
whom the management of things here bslow is com-
Hiitted; and that to them religious worship is to be paid.
It is evident that these principles of Plato's school were
favourable to the Pagan polytheism (i). They even repre-

(^) Intel. Syst. p. 228.

(A) Julian Orat. iv. cited by Cudworth. Intel. Syst. p. 515.
See also the epistle of Maximus Madaurensis, a noted Pagan
philosopher, to St. Austin. Apud Augustin. Opera, torn. ii.
epist. 16.

(J) The Indian Bramins in Malabar have the same notions.

334 The Philosophers employed their Learnings and Part I.

sented the worshipping inferior deities as an honour done
to the Supreme; and found fault with those who were for
paying their adorations to the one Supreme God, and to
him only. " The great king of the universe,*' says that
eminent philosopher Plotinus, '' shews his greatness chiefly
by the multitude of gods. For this is not the part of those
who know the power of God to contract the Divinity into
one, T« a-v^f7xxi eh £v, but to expand or display it as he him-
self hath expanded it; who, remaining, what he is, one,
makfth many, all of whom depend upon him, and are by
him, and from him (/^)." And Onatus the Pythagorean, in
a passage preserved by Stobaeiis, asserts, ihat " there is not
one only God, but one the greatest and highest God: and
that there are many other gods, differing in power, but he
reigneth over them all, as surpassing them all in power,
reason and virtue." He adds, that " those who maintain
that there is only one God, are much mistaken: for they do
not consider that the greatest dignity of the divine super-
eminence consists in ruling and governing those who are
like him, and in his being more excellent than others, and
superior to them (/)." Thus ingenious have men been to
devise plausible pretences for paying divine honours to the
creatures. But how much nobler is the scripture doctrine:

which they make use of to justify the worship paid by them to
a vast number of inferior deities. See Narrative of the Danish
Missionaries, part 2d. p. 7. et seq.

(k) Ennead. II. lib. ix. cap. 9.

(/) Apud Stob. Eclog. Physic, lib. i. cap. 3. p. 4. edit. Plant.
Onatus seems to intimate that there were some in his time who
held that there is only one God: where he either refers to the
Jews, or to some among the Gentiles who joined with them in
this. But whoever they were, he plyinly charges it as an error;
and in this he speaks the sense of the most eminent philoso-
phers.

Chap. XVI. Abilities to support the Pagan Idolatry, 335

which teacheth us, that there are numberless myriads of
holy and mighty angels, subject to the Supreme, but that
we are not to adore them, but to join with them in adoring
their and our supreme universal Lord. Maximus Tyriu&,
in the conclusion of his first dissertation, expresseth him-
self thus, *' if you are too weak to contemplate the Father
and maker of all things, it is sufficient for you at present
to behold the works, and to worship his progeny [t« 'Uyomi
the things which proceed from him] which are many and
of various kinds; not merely as many as the Boeotian poet
mentions; for there are not only thirty thousand gods, the
sons and friends of God, but their number is not to be
comprehended; and such in the heaven are the stars, in the
sether daemons (w)." Thus were the objects of worship mul-
tiplied by the philosophers themselves to an amazing de-
gree (ji): whilst, at the same time, under pretence of the most
exalted notions of the Supreme Being, they declined speaking
of him, or of the worship due to him, to the people. They

{m) Max. Tyr. Dissert, i. p. 18. Edit. Oxon. 1677.

(n) The philosophers not only joined with the popular Pa^^
gans in deifying and worshipping sensible objects, the things of
this visible world, but the most refined of them, the Platonists,
added a vast number of deities of their own imagining, and
which belonged to the world of ideas, the intelligible and arch-
etypal world, of which this sensible world is only the shadow
and image, as Plotinus calls it*. It was their humour to deify
the abstract notions of their own minds, and to make them di-
vine powers, intelligences, and substantial essences. The latter
Platonists especially, who affected an extraordinary sublimity
and refinement, carried this to a strange degree of extravagance.
Any man will be convinced of this that considers the account
which Proclus gives of these mystic and metaphysical deities^
in the third and following books of his Theologia Platonica.

• Ennead. Hi, lib, viii, cap, 10.

S36 The Philosophers employedthelr Learning and Part I.

alleged that the vul^jar were unable to form any conception
of an invisible Deity, and looked upon that to be nothing
which they could not see or perceive by their senses; that
therefore the worshipping the things of nature and the in-
ferior deities, was the only way to keep the people from
running into atheism. On the same foundation they plead-
ed for and recommended the worship of images. Thus
Maximus Tyrius, in a dissertation on this very subject,
says, that " the divine nature stands not in need of images
or statues; but that the nature and condition of man being
very weak, and as far distant from the Divinity as heaven,
is from the earth, framed these signs for itself, and attribu-
ted to them the names and titles of the gods;" and he
thinks the legislators acted wisely in contriving images for
the people (o). He especially approves the making images
of the gods in human forms; but he also justifies the worj
shipping rivers, mountains, and other parts of nature, as the
signs and representations of the Divinity.

I would observe by the way, that Moses and the pro-
phets under the Old Testament, as well as our Saviour
and his apostles under the New, acted upon far nobler
principles. They did not pretend a necessity for leading
the people into wrong notions of religion, and into a wor-
ship unsuitable to the Divine Majesty. Animated by a
holy zeal for the glory of God, and assured of his divine
assistance, they taught the people to worship an invisi-
ble Deity in a pure and spiritual manner, without corporeal
images and representations, and were not for dividing their
religious homage between the great Lord of the universe,
and his creatures and subjects, or parcelling out that wor-
ship to a multitude of pretended deities, which was due
to him alone.

(o) Max. Tyr. Dissert. 38. p. 452. Edit, Oxon. 1677.

Chap. XVI. Abilities to support the Pagan Idolatry, 337

Another method which the philosophers took to uphold
and justify the Pagan theology was by allegorizing the
fables of the poets and mythologists, which lay at the
foundation of many of their sacred rites. I had occasion to
take notice of this before, and observed, that the Stoics
were particularly remarkable for their allegorical and phy-
siological explications of those fables: though many of the
Pagans themselves ridiculed the explications they gave as
forced and unnatural. This however was the way that was
almost universally taken by the philosophers, after the
Christians set themselves to expose the absurdities of the
Pagan mythology, and the religion founded upon it. Instead
of absolutely rejecting those fables, many of which were of
an immoral tendency, and altogether unworthy of the
Deity, the philosophers represented them as full of hidden
wisdom, and thereby confirmed the people in the opinion
they had of the divine original and authority of those fabless
which was of the most pernicious consequence. Plotinus
himself endeavoureth to accommodate the poetical fables and
theogony to his own scheme of philosophy (/?). And all the
latter Platonists and Pythagoreans interpreted those fables
in a physical sense, and applied them to the phenomena of
nature. A remarkable instance of which we have in Por-*
phyry's interpretation of Saturn's emasculating his father
Coelus (^), though this is one of the fables which Plato re-
presents as not fit to be tolerated in the commonwealth,
whatever allegorical sense might be put upon it.

Even the Egyptian idolatry in worshipping several kinds
of animals, which was ridiculed for its absurdity by many
of the common Pagans in other countries, found advocates

{p) Plotin. Ennead. v. lib. viii. cap. 13. p. 554.
(y) Porphyr. de Musarum Antro, p. 260, 261. in the Cafti^
bridge edition of Porphyr. de Abstin.
Vol, I. ?^ U

338 The Philosophers employed their Learning and Part L

among the philosophers. Celsus observes, that the Egyp-
tians looked upon the brute animals they worshipped to be
a kind of symbols of God, tom «t)r« ^» trvfA^aXxy and that in
the veneration they paid to those animals they designed to
honour the eternal ideas; and therefore blames the Chris-
tians for deriding them (r). And others of the philosophers
who pretended to an extraordinary refinement, endeavoured
to persuade the world, that the Egyptian idolatry had a
great deal of occult wisdom contained in it. That great
philosopher Plotinus expresses a high esteem of the wisdom
of the Egyptian priests in representing divine mysteries
under the figures of animals (s). Porphyry, after having
given a great encomium of the piety, the abstinence, the
purity, the continence, the philosophy of the Egyptian
priests, and their unwearied diligence in their studies (?),
observes, that the divinity dwelleth not only in men, but in
all animals: and that therefore thev made the images of the

(r) Origen contra Cels. lib. iii. p. 121. For clearing this, it is
proper to observe, that the Platonisis speak of etern£«l ideas in
God as distinct beings, subsisiintj in and with the Supreme God.
And PlMito hintself in hisTimaeus represents them as iro,)T« ^««,
intelligible animals, the patterns and prototypes of those that are
sensible: and that they are immortal gods. He also teaches that
those ideas are the only things derived from the Supreme God,
which have a real existence: and thai all things in the world are
only the images and representations of those ideas*. Thus it ap-
pears, that their philosophy led to idolatry, and tended to furnish
excuses even for the grossest kinds of it: since they might wor-
ship every thing in nature under pretence of doing honour to
the eternal ideas, and divine originals, of which all things in this
world are the representations.

(s) Ennead. lib. viii. cap. 6. p. 547.

(r) De Abstin. lib. iv. sect. 6. p. 149. edit. Cantab. 1655.

• See Campbell's Necess. Revel, p. 304, 305. Marg. note-

Chap. XVI. Abilities to support the Pagan Idolatry, 339

gods in the figure of all animals, and sometimes joined the
bodies of wild beasts and birds to the bodies of men (w):
that in some parts of Egypt the lion is worshipped, in others
the wolf: and in every province they worshipped the virtues
and powers of the God who is over all, in those animals
which were most proper to that province; so that each pro-
vince had its several gods: that they worshipped all animals,
and men too, in the village of Anubis: and that in their
excellent wisdom and intimate communion with the divi-
nity, they came to know to which of the deities certain ani-
mals were dearer than men {pc). And again he affirms, that
it was through their wisdom and extraordinary knowledge
of God and of divine things that they came to the worship
of animals: though he acknowledges that it might appear
strange to the unlearned, that wise men who were not car-
ried away by the prejudices of the vulgar, and who had got
above their ignorance, made those things the objects of their
worship, which seemed not to be worthy of honour. Thus
it is that Porphyry endeavours to justify the Egyptian wor-
ship of animals. But if we may depend upon the account
given by Philostratus, the Egyptians were not able to assign
any reasons to Apollonius Tyanaeus of this their worship.
The priests and wise men of Egypt (as hath been already-
observed) were very careful to conceal their theology from
the people under hieroglyphics or symbolical characters, and
allegorical fables. And at length it came to pass, that the
true original symbolical sense, being a secret transmitted
but to few, was in a great measure lost and forgotten among
those pretended wise men themselves. This sufficiently ap-
pears from Plutarch's book of Isis and Osiris, which plainly
shews, that notwithstanding the high opinion that philoso-

(w) De Abstin. lib. iv. sect. 9. p. 154. edit. Cantab. 1655.
(x) Ibid. sect. 9. p. 155.

340 The 7nost refined Philosophers against Part I.

pher had entertained of the wisdom of the Egyptians, there
was a great deal of darkness and confusion in their theology,
which was full of monstrous fables, taken by the vulgar in
the literal sense, and in the interpretation of which their
learned men and priests were very much divided.

The last thing I would here observe with regard to the
philosophers is, that some of them who were thought to
have the sublimest notions of the Divinity seemed to be
against all external worship of the Supreme God. It was
before shewn, that Plato did not propose him to the people
as the object of public worship, as being incomprehensible,
and not to be named or expressed in words (if). ApoUonius

(i/) The account Plato and the Platonists give of the first Prin-
ciple, who in their theology is the first and highest God, is per-
fectly unintelligible. They suppose him to be a simple unity, or
unity itself, so simple, that, as Plolinus speaks, " nothing can be
predicated of it, not being, nor essence, nor life, because it is
above all these things*.*' He sets himself to shew that the first
principle, which he, after Plato, calls to uy»(ih, is not intellect,
because intellect implies muliiplicityf. *' When therefore," says
he, " you speak of the aya^ov, or good itself, you must add no-^
thing to it even in thought. — -You ought not to add to it intellect
or intelligence, lest you should add something alien from it, and
so of one you will make two, intellect and good. — 9ro/»Vg/$ §v« »Si/
^ tiyccdhX." Thus the first principle was not to have any thing
predicated of it, nor consequently any attributes ascribed to it
for fear of destroying its unity. Nor would they allow that the
first transcendental unity, the to "Ev or ayxih^ which is simply
and absolutely one, had any thing properly to do either in the
creation of the world, or the government of it. Numenius, a cele-
brated Platonic philosopher, in a passage quoted from him by
Eusebius, gives it as Plato's doctrine, that " it was not fitting
that the first Principle should [^»)^<»§y«v] act as a Demiurgus or
inaker of the world.'* And he afterwards mentions it as a thing

' Plotin. Ennead. iii. lib. viii. cap. 9. f Ibid. cap. 7, 8. ^^ Ibid . cap, 10.

Chap. XVI. all outward worship of the Supreme God. 341

Tyanaeus, as appears by a passage cited by Eusebius, from
a book of his upon Sacrifices, was of opinion, that " no sen-
sible thing was fit to be offered or dedicated to the God
whom we call the First," and whom he afterwards describes
to be the God over all: " there being no sensible thing which
is not a kind of pollution compared with him: but that he
ought to be worshipped by the word or reason which is
inward, not that which proceedeth out of the mouth: and
that we must ask good things from the Best of Beings, by
that which is best and most excellent in us; and this is in-
tellect; which does not need any organ or instrument of

certain, and which admits of no doubt, that " the first God is idle
or vacant from ail works: but that the detniurgical God governs all
things, going through heaven. — Tox f^lvTr^uTov S-ecv u^yhv iUxtigya^
IfittTayTwy >^ '^eto'iMx^ tov ^n/xia^yiKov M ^sov ViyifX.ov{iv %l if^ecvi tovTcn*."

The same philosopher represents Plato as upbraiding men for
being ignorant of the first God: for that he whom they regarded as
the first, viz. the Demiurgus, is not really the first, but there is
another more anlient and more divine f. It is upon this founda-
tion, that the emperor Julian intimates that the Hebrews did not
know the first God, because they supposed the Maker of the
world to be the first and highest God|. This first Platonic prin-
ciple therefore seems to be an abstract meiaphysical Deity, very
different from the true supreme God as described to us in the
Sacred Writings, whose understanding is infinite, who is the al-
mighty Maker of heaven and earth, and who governeih all things
by his wise and good providence. For none of these things could
be properly predicated of the Platonic first God, whom ibcy re-
present as eternally unactive, idle as an Epicurean Dciiy . having
no concern with our world: nor is he therefore the proper object
of our prayers and invocations, our thanksgivings and praises.

*Eiiseb. Praep. Evangel, lib. xi. cap. 18. p. 537. B, C. edit. Paris 1528.

t Ibid. p. 359. C.

i Apud Cyril, contra Julian, lib. iv. p. 141, 142. D;

342 The most refined Philosophers^ &c. Part h

speech (z)*" To the same purpose Porphyry, who seems to
have had this very passage of ApoUonius in view, declares,
that " as a certain wise man hath observed, we ought not
to offer up or dedicate any sensible thing to that God who
is over all: for there is no material thing which is not im*
pure to him who is abstracted from all matter: neither is any
outward word proper to be offered to him which is uttered
by the voice, nor even that which is internal, if it be pollut-
ed with any passion: but we must worship him in silence
and pure thought (a)." Thus under pretence of inward re*
ligion and pure devotion, the outward expressions of it were
to be neglected: and the only one true God, who alone de-
serves to be worshipped, is not to have any outward homage
rendered to him at all. This is certainly a false refinement,
and which tendeth in a great measure to banish all appear-
ance of religion, as it signifieth the worship of the one true
Supreme God, out of the world. It is however to be observ-
ed, that though some of the more refined Platonists and
Pythagoreans declared against offering up any external ma-
terial oblation or sacrifice to him whom they regarded as
the first and highest God, yet they recommended the ob-
servation of the public rites and ceremonies of religion, and
the worship of the gods appointed by the laws, of which
sacrifices and oblations made a principal part: a plain proof,
that the Pagan public worship was not, according to their
notion of it, the worship of the one Supreme God, but was
wholly offered up to inferior deities, or to daemons.

(z) Euseb. Praep. Evangel, lib. iy. cap. 13. p. 150.
(a) Ibid. cap. 11. p. 149.

343

CHAPTER XVIL

The state of the Heathen world with respect to their notions of Divine Provi-
dence. The belief of a Providence superintending hnman affairs obtained gene-
rally among the vulgar Pagans: but the Providence they acknowledged was
parcelled out among a multiplicity of gods and gofldesses. Their notions of Pro-
▼idence were also in other respects very imperfect and confused. The doctrine
of the philosophers concerning Provitlence considered. Many of them, and of
the learned and polite Pagans, denied a Providence. Of those who professed to
acknowledge it, some confined it to heaven and heavenly things Others sup-
posed it to extend to the earth and to mankind, yet so as only to exercise a
general care and superintendency, but not to extend to individuals. Others
supposed all things, the least as well as the greatest, to be under the care of
Providence: but they ascribed this not to the Supreme God, who they thought
was above concerning himself with such things as these, and committed the
care of them wholly to inferior deities. The great advantage of KeveUtion
shewn for instructing men in the doctrine of Providence: and the noble idea
given of it in the Holy Scriptures.

^ EXT to the existence of God, that which is of the
greatest importance to be known by us iss, that he governs
the world by his Providence; and particularly that he takes
care of men and their affairs. Without a belief of Provi-
dence there can be no such thing as religion. This the
wisest of the Heathens were sensible of. Cicero in the be-
ginning of his celebrated books of the nature of the gods,
speaking of those philosophers who maintained that the
gods take no care at all of mankind or their concernments,
observes, that " if their opinion were true, there would be no
piety, no sanctity, no religion — that if the gods do not mind
what men do, or what events befal them, there is no rea-
son to pray to them, or worship them: and that if religion
and piety be taken away from amongst men, the greatest
confusion and disorder would ensue in human life; and
together with piety, mutual fidelity, and the social ties
which bind mankind together, and that most excellent virtue

344 The Heathen Notions Part L

justice, would be banished out of the world. — Sunt enim
philosophi et fuerunt, qui omnino nuUam habere censerent
rerum humanarum procurationem deos. Quorum si vera
sententia est, quae potest esse pietas? quae sanctitas? quae
religio? — quibus sublatis, perturbatio vitse sequitur, et
magna confusio. Atque haud scio, an pietate adversus deos
sublaia, fides etiam et societas generis humani, et una ex=^
cellentissima virtus justitia toUatur («)."

If we look back to the most antient times, the doctrine
of a Providence seems to have been a remarkable part of
the universal tradition derived from the first agtrs. Plu-
tarch speaking of the Deity and a Providence, '" « ^^avai*
Kui TO 3-£/<»»," calls it " the pious faith derived from their
fathers or ancestors, from which they ought not to depart.
— rh ivTeZvi Kdi ^ecreioy f^ii TT^ona-B-xi ^1^19 (^)." Some notion of
this was still preserved amidst all the corruptions of the
Pagan world. And to this was principally owing whatever
there was of order, sobriety, and good government main-
tained among men. The ablest politicians were sensible of
this, and therefore encouraged the belief of it among the
people; and all the antient legislators proceeded upon it as
a principle, as is clearly shewn by the learned Bishop of
Gloucester in his Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated.
They who believed that there were superior invisible
powers, generally believed also that they had a great in-
fluence on human affairs, and on the prosperous and ad-
verse events which befal mankind. This is every where
supposed in the writings of the poets, who usually re-
presented things according to the popular notions, and
were themselves the instructors of the people. Cicero in
his Oratio de Haruspic. Respons. n. 2. mentions it to the

(a) De Nat. Deer. lib. i. cap. 2.

(b) Plut, Oper. torn. ii. p. 402. E, Franco!.

Chap. XVII. of Providence considered, 34^

praise of the antient Romans, that they excelled all nations
in piety* and especially in this eminent point of wisdom^
that they clearly perceived that all things are governed by
the providence of the immortal gods (c). And in his se-
cond book of Laws, cap. 7. he represents this doctrine as
both true in itself, and of great advantage to the public,
and that therefore care ought to be taken, that the citizens
should in the first place have a firm persuasion of it fixed
in their minds. I had occasion to quote both these passages
before, and need not repeat them here*

But though the belief of a Divine Providence, as extend-*
ing to mankind and their affairs, was generally propagated
among the Pagans, and was no doubt of great advan-
tage, yet as they fell from the right knowledge of the one
true God, and became more and more immersed in idolatry
and polytheism; so their notions of Providence became
wrong and confused too, and were debased with many cor-
rupt mixtures. The providence they acknowledged was
the providence of the divinities they adored^ It was par*
celled out among a multiplicity of gods and goddesses,
among whom they supposed the administration of things
to be distributed, as being " (rwa^^ovjn ra S-g« — -co-rulers

(c) It is an observation of Lord Bolingbroke, that the belief
of a particular Providence was a principal cause of the pros-
perity of the Roman commonwedUh: and that though the Ro-
man religion established by Numa was very absurd, yet by
keeping up an awe of superior power, and the belief of a provi-
dence that ordered the course of events, it produced all the
marvellous effects which Machiavel, after Polybius, Cicero, and
Plutarch, ascribes to it. Bolingbroke's Works, vol. IV. p. 422.
edit. 4to. And when in the latter times of the Roman republic,
they began to throw off all sense of religion, and regard to Di-
vine Providence, their state declined, and they fell from their
antient virtue and glory.

Vol. L 2 X

346 The Heathen Notions Part I.

with God," and " tttivmoi t5$ i^y/a — sharers with him in his
empire," as Maximus Tyrius expresseth it (^). They
were regarded as having different provinces belonging to
them; and many of the people, as Dr. Cudworth observes,
looked upon them to be sovereign and independent in their
several provinces. To them therefore both jointly and se-
verally they offered up prayers and sacrifices, for obtaining
the good things they stood in need of, and for averting the
evils and calamities they feared: whilst the one true God,
the original author of all good, and the supreme Disposer
of all events, was overlooked and neglected.

Plato in his Timseus declares concerning the Pagans in
his time, that " all those who had never so small a share
of sobriety or prudence, were wont in the undertaking of
any affair, whether small or great, always to invoke God. —

xcci fX,iyuXii TT^oiyf^ctJOi B'sov tcii wS iTriKctXiffi (^)»" A man that

comes to read this, prepossessed with the notions he has
received from Scripture, will be apt to understand it as
signifying that the sober Heathens were generally wont in
every affair to invoke the one true God, and address them-
selves to him for his assistance and blessing. And it has
been actually quoted by some learned men for this purpose.
And indeed separately taken it has that appearance. But if
we carefully examine it, we shall find that this is not the
intention of that passage. It only signifies that they were
wont on such occasions to invoke a god, as it might be
rendered, i. e. some god or other, and probably the patron
deity, viiT^ug 5-go5, as Plato sometimes expresses it, or some
of the gods appointed by law (/). This appears from what

(d) Max. Tyr. Dissert, i. p. 5. et 19. Oxon. 1675.

(«?) Plat. Oper. p. 526. C. P. Lugd. 1590.

(/) Though the Pagans generally speak of the gods in the

Chap. XVII. of Providence considered, 347

goes before and follows that passage. In the words imme-
diately preceding Socrates tells Timaeus, that he ought in
the beginning of his discourse to invoke the gods according
to law. To which Timseus answers by observing in the pas-
sage now cited, that it was usual for all prudent persons in
the beginning of every work to invoke God, or a God;
*'how much more," says he, " is it necessary for us, when
we are about to discourse of the universe, whether it was
made, or was without beginning, to invoke the gods and
goddesses, that we may speak in a manner agreeable to
them, and consistent with ourselves (^)." To the same pur-

plural, yet it was not unusual with them to mention God in the
singular number. Some of the antient fathers and apologists for
Christianity, particularly Tertullian, Minucius Felix, and Lac-
tantius, take notice of this, and of some forms of speech which
obtained among the Heathens of that time: such as " Deus videt,
Deus reddet, Deus inter nos judicabit, si Deus voluerit." " God
seeth, God will recompense, God will judge between us, if God
will;** and the like. This they regard as a kind of natural testi-
mony to the unity and perfections of God; or in Tertullian's lan-
guage, " testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae.** But there
is no great stress to be laid upon this. Dr. Cudworth himself
owns, that the Heathens sometimes used the word God indefi-
nitely, and in a general way, when they had not the Supreme
God particularly in view. They also sometimes spoke of God in
the singular, when they only intended to signify some one of the
many deities they adored. The not attending to this, has some-
times led learned men astray in their quotations, who have judg-
ed of the meaning of passages in Pagan writers by their own
Christian ideas. It may be added, that after the Gospel had made
some progress in the world, and the Christians came to have
frequent intercourse with the Pagans, such a manner of expres-
sion as hath been mentioned might be more frequently used,
even among the vulgar Pagans, than it was before.
{g) Plat. Oper. p. 536. C, Lugd. 1590.

348 The Heathen Notions Part I.

pose Plato observes in the beginning of his eighth epistle;
that " it is necessary in all, things we think or say to begin
from the gods. — a^ro ^zav x^vi zrdfret ei^^i/^ivav «u ?iSy6iv n kx}
voErv," And it is a precept of Socrates mentioned by Xenophon
in his Oeconomics, that we should endeavour to begin every
work with the gods.— Tgifct^S-es; vlv to7$ B^cls a^xto-B-xi Truvrot
'c§y«." Varro, as appears from a passage I mentioned before, >-
thought he had done a considerable service to his country-
men and fellow-citizens, in directing them what god or
goddess they were to apply to in each particular case and
circumstance.

That the vulgar Pagans, though they believed a Provi-
dence, had wrong and defective notions of it, appears from
a remarkable passage of Xenophon, in which he observes,
that Socrates thought " that the gods take care of men,
not in the manner which 01 -ttIxmi the many suppose,"
(where he seems to speak of the generality of the Athenians
themselves) " they think, saith he, that there are some
things which the gods know, and some things which they
do not know. But Socrates was of opinion that the gods
know all things, and are every where present (/i)*" See the
passage quoted above, p. 300,

The Pagans were also led into a wrong judgment of
Providence by the notions they generally entertained of
fortune, which they regarded as a blind, capricious, incon-
stant deity, and as having a principal sway in the events of
things in this lower world. This tended to take them off
from that religious dependence upon God, and ingenuous
trust in him, and that resignation to his disposing will,
which is an eminent part of true religion and godliness.
There is a remarkable passage of the Elder Pliny, which

(A) Mcraorab. Socrat.lib. 1. cap. 1. sect. 19.

Chap. XVII. of Providence considered, 349*

it may not be amiss to mention here. " Through the whole
world," saith he, " in all places, and at all times, Fortune is
univerally invoked by all persons. This alone has the praise
or blame of every thing, and is at the same time worshipped
and reproached; esteemed by the most of mankind to be
blind, uncertain, various, and inconstant, a favourer of such
as are unworthy: to this all events are attributed both pros-
perous and adverse; and in the whole management of hu-
man affairs this fills up both sides of the account." — " Toto
quippe mundo, in locis omnibus, omnibusque horis, omnium
vocibus, Fortuna sola invocatur, sola laudatur, sola argui-
tur, et cum conviciis colitur: volubilis a plerisque vero et
cseca etiam existimata, vaga, inconstans, incerta, varia, in-
dignorum sautrix: huic omnia expensa, huic omnia feruntur
accepta, et in tota ratione mortalium utramque paginam fa-
cit (i)." To the same purpose Sallust observes, that " For-
tune rules in every thing." — " Fortuna. in omni re domi-
natur." And Menander says, that " Fortune is the king or
tyrant of all the gods.— OT<«yr<w» rv^uwos *i rv^n sV«» r£v B-iSv (i^)."
Lord Herbert owns, that Fortune was had in great venera-
tion among the Pagans, and looked upon by some of them
as a deity. Both good and bad fortune, " bona et mala for-
tuna," were worshipped, and had images and altars. Vari-
ous temples were erected to Fortune both among the Greeks
and Romans: and particularly there was a famous temple of
fortune at Praeneste (/).

Another thing to be observed with regard to the vulgar
notions of Providence among the Heathens is, that they
commonly considered it as extending only to the outward

(0 Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. ii. cap. 7.

(k) Apud Stob. Eclog. Physic, cap. 10. p. 15. Edit. Plantin.

(/) Herb, de Relig. Gentil. cap. 9. p. 80. et seq. 8vo. Amst.

iroo.

350 The Heathen Notions Part I,

commodities of life; and therefore they applied to the gods
for riches, health, prosperity, and success lu their affairs,
but not for wisdom, or virtue, or moral endowments.
There is a famous passage to this purpose in Cicero's
third book of the Nature of the Gods, which has been
often taken notice of. Cotta is there introduced as saying,
that " all men attributed the external commodities they
enjoyed, their plenty of corn, wine, oil, and fruits, and
every convenience and prosperous event of life, to the
gods: but no man ever acknowledged his having received
his virtue from God. For who," says he, " ever gives
thanks to the gods for his being a good man? But for his
being possessed of riches and honours, and preserved from
dangers, he does. It is on the account of these things that
they give Jupiter the appellation of Optimus et Maximus,
the Greatest and the Best: not that he makes us just, tem-
perate, wise, but that he gives us health, safety, and afflu-
ence." And he adds, that " this is the judgment of all man-
kind, that the gifts of fortune are to be asked of God, but
that a man is to expect wisdom only from himself."— Haec
quidem omnes mortales sic habent; externas commoditates,
vineta, segetes, oliveta, ubertatem frugumet fructuum, om-
nem denique commoditatem prosperitatemque vitse a diis
se habere: virtutem autem nemo unquam acceptam deo re-
tulit. — Num quis quod bonus vir esset gratias diis agit un-
quam? At quod dives, quod honoratus, quod incolumis;
Jovemque Optimum et Maximum ob eas res appellant: non
quod nos justos, temperatos, sapientes efficiat, sed quod
salvos, incolumes, opulentos, copiosos. Judicium hoc om-
nium mortalium est, fortunam a deo petendam, a seipso
sumendam esse sapientiam (*)." This appears to me to be

(*) De Nat. Deer. lib. iii. cap. 36. p. 335, 336. edit. Davis 2da.
♦The reader will observe here that he speaks of God in the sin-

Chap. XVII. of Promdence considered. 35 1

too universally expressed. There were, I doubt not, in the
Heathen world persons that had a better way of thinking,
as might be shewn particularly with regard to Socrates,
Plato, Epictetus, Antoninus, and even some of the poets.
But if this had not been the notion generally entertained^
boih among those of the higher and lower rank, a man of
such learning and eminence as Cotta, and who knew the
world so well, would not have been introduced by Cicero
as asserting it so positively and in such extensive terms.
And it is agreeable to what our Saviour saith, when speak-
ing of the commodities of this present life he declares, that
" after all these things do the Gentiles seek:" i. e. they
seek them in the first and chiefest place: in opposition to
which he exhorteth his disciples, to " seek first the kingdom
of God and his righteousness." Matt. vi. 32, 33.

It may be farther observed in relation to the notions of
providence which obtained among the Pagans, that not on-
ly did they invoke a great variety of those whom they
looked upon as benevolent deities for assistance and direc-
tion, and for obtaining the good things ihey stood in need
of; but they were also wont, on several occasions, to offer
up prayers and sacrifices, and to render religious worship,
to evil and malignant daemons, regarded by themselves as
such, from an apprehension that they had a great share in
the administration of things, and in order to appease and
humour them, and keep them from doing mischief: for the
proof of this I would refer the reader to what is said above,
p. 135, et seq. And this certainly argueth very wrong ''no-
tions of Divine Providence, as if God were not able or in-
clined to protect his faithful servants and true worshippers
against the power and malice of evil beings.

gular number, and of gods in the plural, and makes use of one
or other of these terms indifferently.

352 The Heathen }Totwnst Part L

Having considered the popular belief of Providence
among the Heathens, let us next consider that of the philo-
sophers. Many of them, instead of rectifying the vulgar
notions on this head, would not allow that there is a Pro-
vidence at all. And in this as well as several other instances
they erred more than the common people. The doctrine of
the Epicureans is well known, who, though they pretended
to acknovvledge that there are gods, absolutely denied that
they concerned themselves about men, or any of their ac-
tions or the events relating to them. But this was far from
being peculiar to that sect. Plato, who lived before Epicu-
rus, takes notice in his tenth book of Laws, of many in his
time, who professed to believe the gods, and yet did not
believe that they minded human affairs.

Cicero in the introduction to his first book of the Nature
of the gods, represents this as one of the principal things
which were controverted with great eagtrness among the
philosophers, and about which they differed mightily in
their opinions, Whether the gods are wholly idle and unac-
tive, and take no care at all of the administration of things;
or whether, on the contrary, all things were by them both
made and constituted from the beginning, and are still mov-
ed and governed by them, and shall be so to infinite ages*
*' Quod vero maxume rem causamque continet; utrum nihil
agant dii, nihil moliantur, et ab omni curatione et adminis-
tratione rerum vacent: an contra ab his et a principio omnia
facta et constituta sint, et ad infinitum semper regantur, at-
que moveantur, in primis magna dissensio est." And ac-
cordingly not only is Velleius the Epicurean there intro-
duced as ridiculing the doctrine of Divine Providence; but
Cotta the Academic employs all the force of his wit and
eloquence against it, and sets himself to shew that the gods
take no care of men, and the actions and events relating to
them. This opinion seems to have made no small progress
in the polite world even among the Romans. That antient

Chap. XVII. of Providence considered. 353

poet Ennius declares his belief, that there are gods, but that
they take no notice of human actions, nor give themselves
any concern about them: and what led him to this was the
observing the calamities which befal good men, and the
prosperity of the wicked.

" Ego deum genus esse semper dixi, et dicam caelitum:

Sed eos non curare opinor, quid agat humanum genus;

Nam si curent, bene bonis sit male malis; quod nunc abest (w)."

That great man Tacitus having represented it " as uncer-
tain in his judgment, whether human affairs were governed
by fate and immutable necessity, or by chance," observes, that
in this matter " the wisest of the antients and their followers
were of different sentiments: and that many had this opinion
fixed in their minds, that neither our beginning nor our end,
nor men at all, are minded by the gods. — Mihi h^c ac talia
audienti, in incerto judicium est, fato ne res humanse, ac
necessitate immutabili, an forte volvantur: quippe sapien-
tissimos, quique eorum sectam ^mulantur diversos reperies,
et multis insitam opinionem non initia nostra, non finem,
non denique homines, diis curse (/?)." And that he himself
was much inclined to that opinion appears from another
passage, where speaking of the portents and presages in the
reign of Nero, he says, these things happened so apparently
without any interposition or direction from the gods, that
Nero continued several years after both in his imperial
rule, and in the perpetration of the most flagitious crimes.

Pliny, the great naturalist, lived about the same time with
Tacitus, and he represents it as ridiculous to imagine, that

(m) Apud Cicero de Divinat. lib. ii. cap. 50. et de Nat. Deor.
lib. iii. cap. 32.

(n) Tacit. Annal. vi. .

Vol. I. 2 Y

354 The Heathen Notions Part I.

the God who is supreme takes any care of human affairs:
and adds, That without doubt the Divinity would be pol-
luted with such a sad and troublesome ministry or einploy-
ment. '' Irridendum vero iigere curam rerum humanarum
illud quicquid est summum. Anne tarn triste et miiltiplici
ministerio non poUui credamus dubitemusve?" Hist. Nat.
lib. ii. cap. 7.

Caecilius, a learned and ingenious Roman lawyer, pro-
bably expresses the sense of many gentlemen among the
Pagans of that time, when he urges it as an objection against
the professors of Christianity, that they asserted a Provi-
dence as extending to the affairs and actions of men, and
even to their most secret thoughts. He represents it as an
absurd thing in the Christians to believe, that " their God,
whom they can neither see nor shew, inspects diligently into
the manners of all men, into their actions, and even their
words and hidden thoughts: and that he is every where pre-
sent, troublesome, and impertinently husy and curious;
since he interesteth himself in all things that are done,
and thrusteth himself into all places: whereas he can
neither attend to every particular whilst he is employed
about the whole, nor be able to take care of the whole, being
busied about particulars. — Christian! quae monstra, quse
portenta confingunt? Deum ilium suum, quern nee osten-
dere possunt nee videre, in omnium mores, omnium actus,
verba etiam, et occultas cogitationes diligentes inquirere,
discurrentem scilicet, atque ubique praesentem, molestum
ilium volunt, inquietum, impudenter curiosum: siquidem
instet factis omnibus, locis omnibus interceptus, cum nee
singulis inservire possit per universa districtus, nee univer-
sis sufficit, in singulis occupatus (o)." This was the Epicu-
rean way of talking against Providence, as appears from

(o) Min. Fel. p. 95. Edit. var. 1672.

Chap. XVII. of Providence considered. 355

what Velleius in Cicero says on that subject (/?): and which
owes all its force to their measuring the Divinity by them-
selves, and supposing the gods to be limited, imperfect, and
indolent beings.

As to those of the philosophers who asserted a Provi-
dence, Epictetus represents them as of different sentiments
concerning the nature and extent of it. Some of them, he
says, admitted a Providence in great and heavenly things,
but in nothing upon earth (^). Ochers supposed it to take

(fi) De nat. Deor. lib. i. cap 20.

(9) This is said to have been Aristotle's opinion. It is true,
that in his Nicomachian Ethics he seems to admit the supposi-
tion, that Providence concerns itself about men ajid their affairs,
though he speaks of it doubtfully " If,*' says he, " the gods exer-
cise any care at all about men, as it seems — li rti iTrifiiXiix rSi/
eiiG^avm vvo^iay yivBToch cw? lo»c7 " Arist. Oper. tom. II. p. 140.
Paris 1629. But many of ihe antients charge him with holding
that Providence does nr^t extend to the things which are below
the moon. Chalcidius positively asserts it in his commentary on
Plato's Timaeus, p. 369. at the end of Fabricius's edition of Hip-
politus, Hamburg. 1716. A very learned writer asserts that this
is a calumny that Chalcidius raised of him. But Plutarch, who
lived before Chalcidius, plainly signifies the same thing. De
Placit. Philosoph. lib. ii. cap. 3. So also does Clemens Alexand.
Strom. V. p. 700. edit. Potter: and Potter in his notes quotes
other testimonies to the same purpose. Stobaeus represents Aris-
totle as maintaining that heavenly things are governed by Provi-
dence, but not things on earth. Eclog. Physic, cap. 25. p. 48.
edit. Plant. Atticus the Platonist, as quoted by Eusebius, passes
a severe censure upon him on this account for subtracting men
and their affairs from the care of Divine Providence. Apud Eu-
seb. Praeparat. Evangel, lib. 15. cap. 5. p. 798, etseq.; and Pro-
clus speaking of these physiologers, who, though they acknow-
ledged the heavenly bodies to partake of mind and Divinity, yet
left the sublunary world to float up and down without Providence,

256 The Heathen Notions Part I.

care of things both in heaven and earth; but only in gene-
ral, not with respect to individuals. Others, like Ulysses
in Homer, and Socrates, held that Providence extendeth
to individuals, and that not the least motion or action can
be concealed from God (r). In this Socrates w^as followed
by Plato, who, in his tenth book of Laws, endeavours to
prove, that mankind, and the things relating to them, not
only great matters, but even the smallest, are under the
care of Divine Providence; and argues very well upon it.
The same thing he asserts in his Epinomis; concerning
which see above, p. 301. But, as was there observed, in his
whole disputation on that subject he speaks of the Provi-
dence of the gods in the plural, and even of the gods which
the laws directed them to worship. And particularly he
supposes, that the dominion and superintendency of things
in this lower world was vested in the stars: whom therefore,
both in his tenth book of Laws and in his Epinomis, he
strongly recommendeth to the worship of the people. And
he treats the doctrine of those who taught, that the sun,
moon, and stars are not animated, and could not take cog-
nizance of human aft'airs, as an inlet to Atheism, and a
denial of Providence.

It was not merely in a way of accommodation to the
popular manner of expression, that Plato and others spoke
of the Providence of the gods. For the system of the
Platonists, and others of the philosophers, who seemed to
entertain the most exalted thoughts of the Divinity, was
this: that he whom they regarded as the first and highest
God did not concern himself with mankind or their affairs,
but committed the administration and management of them

adds, that these afterwards Aristotle followed. See Cudworth's
Intel. Syst. p. 237. 2d edit.

(r) Epict. Dissert, lib. i. cap. 12. init.

Chap. XVII. cf Providence considered. 357

wholly to inferior deities (s). It is not therefore without
reason that Lord Bolingbroke observes, that " the Pagans
reduced the Monad or first Unity in some sort to an ab-
stract or notional being, and banished him almost entirely
out of the system of his works (^)." Lord Herbert says,
concerning the Pagans in general, that they exempted the
the highest God, as being most happy, from cares. Deum
summum, tanquam beatissimum, curis eximebant olim
Gentiles (w)." And he elsewhere observes, that among
those who believed one Supreme God, many thought that
he did not meddle with the things of this lower world; but
that he hath withdrawn himself with the super-celestial
gods his companions from the view of mortals, as being'
of so sublime a nature, that no sharpness of sight or under-
standing could reach to them: instead of which he hath
brought forth into view those celestial deities which we call
the Sun, Moon, and Heaven. Plutarch in his tract de
Placit. Philosoph. argues pretty largely, that it is unworthy

(«) It was observed before in the second chapter of this work,
p. 82. marg. note, that this notion that the highest God of all is
above concerning himself with the affairs of men, and hath de-
volved the care of them upon inferior deities, obtained among
many of those Pagan nations, vt'hich retained the idea of one
Supreme God. And that this was a principal source of the
prevailing polytheism, since it occasioned their offering up their
worship, prayers and sacrifices to inferior deities, on whom they
thought they depended for all good things, whilst the Supreme
God, who, they imagined, did not concern himself about them,
was neglected. To correct this error, and assert the universal
and particular Providence of the one Supreme God, was one
great design of the Jewish revelation, and is farther confirmed
by the Gospel of our Saviour.

(^) Bolingbroke*s Works, vol. iv. p. 468. Edit. 4to.

(m) Relig, Gentil. cap. xi. p. 138.

558 The Heathen Notions Part I.

of the majesty of the Supreme Being, and inconsistent with
his happinesss, to busy himself about the affairs of men (x).
There is a long and remarkable passage of Apuleius hich
it may be proper to take some notice of on this occasion:
the purport of it is this, that the Supreme God is so far
above us, that he is scarce to be approached by the most
purified human intellect: and that there is no immediate
intercourse between us and the first class of subordinate'
deities visible or invisible: but the intercourse is carried on
by intermediate powers called daemons, who are appointed
to take care of every thing here below, which it is not be-
coming the majesty of the celestial gods to meddle with. —
*^ Neque enim pro majestate deuai coelestium fuerit haec
curare (t/)." Porphyry also supposes that the highest God
of all doth not concern himself with terrestial and corporeal
things: and that it belongeth to the inferior deities to grant
us the good things necessary to this life, of which the first
fruits are to be offered to them (z). Yea, as was before ob-
served, he supposes that evil daemons had a power of be-
stowing riches, and other things relating to the body,
which were usually accounted good; and that therefore it is
necessary for those who would obtain these things, to
conciliate their favour by prayers and sacrifices.

None of the philosophers were accounted more zealous
asserters of Divine Providence as extending its care to
mankind, than the Stoics. A remarkable specimen of this
we have in what is largely urged to this purpose by Balbus
the representative of the Stoic sect, in Cicero's second book
of the nature of the gods. Yet he, as Plato had done before

(x) De Placit. Philos. lib. i. cap. 7. torn. ii. p. 881.
(y) Apul. de Daemone Socratis.

(z) Forphyr. De Abstin. lib. ii. sect. 34. et 37. p. 7%, et 80.
Cantab. 1655.

Chap. XVII. of Providence considered, 359

him, generally speaks of the gods in the plural, and the
point he undertakes to prove is, that the world is adminis-
tered by the providence of the gods; and in the course of
his argument he lays a particular stress upon this, that the
stars are animated, that they are living rational beings, and
that they are gods. See some passages quoted to this pur-
pose above, 289. which I need not here repeat. In like
manner Plutarch in his tract against Colotes the Epicurean,
reckons it among the things which are generally believed,
and which he thinks are evident, and cannot reasonably be
controverted, that " there is a providence of the gods, and
that the sun and moon are animated, whom all men wor-
ship, and to whom they offer up prayers and sacrifices (a)."
Thus this great philosopher seems to put the doctrine of a
Providence, and that of the stars being animated and to be
worshipped as gods, upon the same foundation, as if they
were, equally necessary to be believed, and there was the
same evidence for the one as for the other. And this must
certainly have had a bad effect: since those who could not
think it reasonable to believe that the stars are living and
intelligent beings, and exercise a care over men and their
affairs, were in danger of being led to deny a Providence;
the proof of which, according to the reasoning of these
philosophers, and even of Plato himself, depended upon
the same principles.

Balbus the Stoic, whom I have just now mentioned,, af-
ter having said many excellent things to shew the care which
Divine Providence exerciseth towards the human race in
general, proceeds to prove, that the welfare of individuals
or particular persons is consulted and provided for by the
immortal gods. " Nee vero universo generi hominum so-
lum, sed etiam singulis a diis immortalibus consul) et

(a) Plut, advers. Colot. Oper. torn. ii. p. 1 133.

S60 The Heathen Notions Part h

provideri solet (^)'" But it appears from what he saith
afterwards, that he does not intend by this to signify, that
the care and interposition of Divine Providence extendeth
to all individuals, but only to the more worthy and emi-
nent, nor to all their concernments, but only to those of
greater importance. Having instanced in several of the
most eminently great and virtuous men among the antient
Romans, he adds, that both Greece and Rome had pro-^
duced many extraordinary persons; none of whom became
such but by the assistance of God, or of a God; as that
phrase " Juvante Deo" might there be rendered. For he
had spoken of the immortal gods just before: and he ob-
serves immediately after, that for this reason the poets, and
especially Homer, assigned to their principal heroes certain
gods to be their companions (c). He adds some farther
proofs both that the gods take care of cities, and of parti-
cular persons, i. e. of such extraordinary persons as ihose
whom he had mentioned. And accordingly he declares, that
no man ever became great without a divine afflatus or in-
fluence. " Nemo igitur vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino
unquam fuit (<^)." But yet he thinks, that if a man's corn
fields or vineyards should be hurt by a tempest, we ought
not to suppose, that Providence concerneth itself in such

{b) De nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 65. p. 254.

(rf) Ibid. p. 256. Dr. Cudworth produces this passage, << Ju-
vante Deo," as a proof that Cicero uses the word God in the
singular emphatically and by way of eminency, to signify the
one Supreme God, the Lord of the universe, Intel. Syst. p. 236.
But this passage, if taken in connexion with the context, does
not prove it, but is an instance of what was observed before, that
the Pagans sometimes used the word God in the singular, where
it does not appear that they had the one Supreme God pariicu-
larly in view, See above p. 346, marg. note (/).

Chap. XVII. of Providence considered* 361

things as these. " For the gods," saith he, " take care of
great matters, and neglect small ones. — Magna dii curant,
parva negligunt.'* Cotta in his answer to Balbus, in the
third book of the Nature of the Gods, takes notice of this
doctrine of the Stoics, that the gods neglected small matters;
and which they illustrated by this consideration^ that kings
do not mind little occurrences in their kingdoms. He an-
swers, that if they knowingly pass them by and neglect
them, it is a fault. But that the excuse of ignorance can-
not be made for a god, nor want of power neither. He
charges them with inconsistency, in pretending that the gods
do not attend to all things, nor take care of the individuals of
mankind, and yet that men ought to make prayers and vows
to the gods, which supposes that the divine mind attends
to particular persons and their affairs; since it is by parti-
cular persons that prayers and vows are made. " Vota sus-
cipi dicitis oportere; nempe singuli vpvent. Audit igitur
mens divina etiam de singulis (^)." This opinion of the
Stoics, as represented by Balbus, is agreeable to that of
Euripides, which is cited and approved by that great philo-
sopher Plutarch, that " God only concerns himself with the
greatest things, and leaves the smaller to fortune (Z^)." It
does not appear however, that the opinion expressed by
Balbus was that of all the Stoics. For the famous Stoic
Chrysippus is said to have maintained, that Providence ex-
tendeth its care to all things, the least and most inconsider-
able not excepted: for which he is censured by Plutarch.
And Epictetus and Antoninus appear to have been of the
same sentiments, but Seneca seems not to be satisfied about
it. There is a remarkable passage in his 95th epistle, in

((?) De nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 36. et 39.

(/) Plut. de gerenda Repub. oper. torn. ii. p. 811.

Vofc. L 2 Z

362 The Heathen Notions Part I.

which he represents it as necessary to know, "that the
gods preside over the world: that they order things rela-
ting to the whole, as what properly belong to them: and
that they exercise a guardianship over the human race, and
are sometimes curious about individuals.— Scire illos esse
qui praesident mundo: qui uni versa, ut sua, temperant: qui
humani generis tutelam gtrunt: interdum curiosi singulo--
rum." He seems here to think, that Providence seldom
concerneth itself about individuals, or particular persons?
and things: especially those of smaller consequence. And
if this were the case,^ the far greater part of mankind
could not be sure, that they and their concernments are
under the care and inspection of Divine Providence:
which would leave little room for a religious fear of God,
and for the exercise of a due submission, resignation, and
affiance.

The notions which many of the philosophers entertained
of Fate, did also contribute to encumber and perplex their
doctrine of Divine Providence. It is mentioned as one of
Thales's sayings, that necessity is the strongest of all things;
for all things are subject to it. Parmenides and Democritus
held, as Plutarch informs us, that all things came by neces-
sity: and Democritus understood this of an absolute material
necessity. Heraclitus was of opinion that all things are done
by Fate, and that Fate is the same with necessity (^).
The Stoics especially talked much of Fate. Zeno taught
that all things are subject to Fate, as we are informed by
Laertius. But the accounts given of Fate by Zeno, Chry-
sippus, and the most eminent of the antient Stoics, are very
obscure and confused. They held that in the constitution of
the world Jupiter himself was hampered by natural neces-

{S) Plutarch. De Placit. Phil. lib. i. cap. 25, 26, 27. Opera-
torn. ii. p. 884.'

Chap. XVII. Of Providence considered. 363

sity, and the inobsequiousness of matter: so that he could
not always do the things that he would. To this they as-
cribed it that some men are unavoidably of bad and per-
verse dispositions, and that good men are necessarily ex-
posed to exttrnal evils and calamities. Plutarch says, that
necessity was, according to the Stoics, a violent and invin-
cible or immoveable cause; and fate an orderly established
complexion or concatenation of causes (A). And yet they
endeavoured so to explain it, as to leave room for human
liberty. But it must be acknowledged, that the later
philosophers, after Christianity had made some progress
in the world, particularly Hierocles and Simplicius, ex-
pressed themselves much more clearly and consistently on
this subject.

The confusion and uncertainty which the philosophers
wert under farther appears, in that they seemed to divide
the ordering of events between God or Providence, Fate
and Fortune. Plato himself, according to Plutarch, re-
ferred some things to Providence, some things to neces-
sity (i). And in his fourth book of Laws, he saith, '' that
God, and with God, Fortune and Opportunity, govern all
the aifairs of men (<^)." Maximus Tyrius supposes that all
things which happen to men are either inspected and or-
dered by Providence, or necessitated by Fate, or varied by
Fortune, or managed by human art and skill. He compares
Fate to a rigid tyrant, which neither acknowledgeth a su-
perior, nor can be changed: that it draws us by force, and
we must obey: that it is inexorable, and prayers to it are in
vain, and that even Jupiter himself has no way of averting
it. And accordingly he produces the passage of Homer,

{h) Plutarch, de Placit. Phil. lib. i. cap. 27. p. 885.

(i) Ibid cap 26. p 884.

{k) Plat, de Leg. lib. iv. p. 598. Oper. Lugd. 159Q.

J64 Revelation of great Use to instruct us Part I.

where Jupiter is introduced as complaining, that the Fates
had determined that his dear son Sarpedon should be slain
by Patroclus, and that therefore it was not in his power to
save him. As to Fortune that philosopher represents it as a
potentate thathasno understanding, avojjros 5vy«efn5, not guided
by counsel, judgment, or Providence, but by fury, passion,
and impetuous arbitrary will: that it is without reason,
without foresight, deaf and inconstant, driven hither and
thither, and not to be managed by any art or skill of a go-
vernor (/). And he had observed before, in the same dis-
sertation, that riches, and what are usually called the goods
of Fortune, are not given by the gods, but are the mad
gifts of mad Fortune; and he compares them to the gifts
we receive from persons that are drunk (m).

It is manifest from the account which hath been given,
that there was great confusion and uncertainty in the no-
tions of the antient Pagans, both the vulgar and the philo-
sophers, with regard to Divine Providence: it must there-
fore be the highest satisfaction and advantage to have an
express revelation from God to guide and instruct us in a
matter of such vast importance. And this is our inestima-
ble privilege, who have the benefit of the Revelation con-
tained in the Holy Scriptures. We are there assured in the
name of God himself, that though he is infinitely above all
human comprehension, and though it be a wonderful con-
descension in him to regard the services of the most excel-
lent of created beings, yet his providential care extendeth
to all the creatures he hath made, and particularly to man-
kind: and not only to nations and large communities, but
to the individuals of the human race, the meanest not ex-

(/) Max. Tyr. dissert. 30. p. 360. 362. et seq. Edit. Oxon.
1677.
(m) Ibid. p. 357.

Chap. XVII. in the Doctrine of Divine Providence, 365

cepted: that nothing befalleth us by a blind unguided
chance, or an equally blind fatal necessity: that even those
events which seem to us to be fortuitous are under the
superintendency of God's most wise Providence, and no-
thing, whether good or evil, happeneth to us without his
direction or permission; but that this is so ordered as to
leave room for the exercise of human liberty and moral
agency, and for the operation of second causes and instru-
ments: that there are orders of glorious beings superior
to man, whom God is pleased to make use of in the ad-
ministrations of his Providence towards the human race,
but that things are not left absolutely to their direction and
disposal: they are fellow servants with us of the same
supreme universal Lord; nor is any part of that religious
homage or adoration to be rendered to them which is due
to him alone: that there are evil spirits, of great power
as well as malice; but that they can do no more than God
permits, and are under the sovereign control of his Pro-
vidence; so that good men need not be afraid of them,
whilst they put their trust in God, and go on in the way of
their duty: that God is just and good in all his dispensa-
tions, and always proceeds upon the wisest reasons, though
we may not be able at present to apprehend those reasons:
that to his goodness we owe all the advantages and accom-
modations of this present life; and that all the afflictions
which befal us are permitted and ordered by him for wise
and righteous ends; and that he will cause them to work
together for good to them that love and serve him in sin-
cerity. We are there farther assured, that God is evev
ready to grant to good men the influences and aids of his
Holy Spirit, to assist them in the performance of their
duty, and to support and comfort them in all their tribula-
tion: and finally, that he exerciseth a constant inspection
over all men, and knoweth all their words and actions, and
even the most secret thoughts and dispositions of their

366 Of Prayer as practised among the Pagans, Part I.

hearts, and that to him they must be accountable for them,
and shall by him be rewarded or punished accordingly.
This is the general idea which the Scripture giveth us of
God's providential administration, than which nothing can
be more noble, or more useful, where it is stedfastly be-
lieved. And it is of the highest advantage to have all this
not merely proposed to us as the opinions of wise men and
philosophers, contradicted by others of great name, but
ascertained by an express Re vela ion from God himself.
This certainly layeth a solid foundation for a religious awe
and veneration of the Divine Majesty, for yielding a duti-
ful obedience to his laws, for an intire submission and re-
signation to his will, and a calm acquiescence in the orders
of his Providence, for a thankful sense of his goodness in
the blessings we enjoy, and a steady patience and fortitude
of mind under all the afflictions and adversities we may
meet with in this present state, and for our acting continu-
ally as in his sight, and maintaining an habitual regard to
him in our whole course.

On this occasion it may not be improper to say some-
thing about the duty of prayer, the right exercise of which
hath a manifest dependence on the doctrine and belief of
Divine Providence. This hath very generally obtained,
wherever there has been an appearance of religion; and it
may reasonably be supposed to have made a part of the
primitive religion derived from the first parents and an-
cestors of the human race. Whilst this religion continued
in a considerable degree uncorrupted, prayers, as well as
the other acts of divine worship, were directed to the one
true God, the Creator and Governor of the world. But as
idolatry made a progress, their religious worship, and par-
ticularly this part of it, was addressed to a multiplicity of
deities. To these they offered up their prayers and suppli-
cations, looking upon them as the dispensers of worldly
blessings, or the inflicters of evils and calamities: whilst

Chap. XYli.Of Prayer ds practised among' the Pagans. 367

the Supreme universal Lord was in a great measure ne-
glected, even by those who had some notion of the one
Supreme Deity, because they supposed him too far above
them, to concern himself with their affairs. Htnce it came
to pass, that though prayer was almost universally in use
among the Pagan nations, they were wrong in the object
of their prayers, and generally in the matter of them too.
They seem for the most part to have had no notion of
praying to the gods for any thing but goods of a worldly
nature, riches, honours, long life, health, prosperity and
success in their undertakings, and otiier things of a like
kind. Some of their wisest men saw the impropriety of
this, and at the same time they were so sensible of their
own inability to judge what to pray for as they ought, that
they thought it best only to pray for good things in gene-
ral, and not to presume to descend to particular requests.
This is the design of Socrates in the second Alcibiad; in
which he represents to that young nobleman, that it was not
safe for him to pray for any thing in particular, lest
the thing he prayed for should prove ^ curse instead of a
blessing; and therefore advises him to wait till some god
should enlighten him in the knowledge of good and evil,
Pythagoras, as Laertius informs us (n), permitted not that
any man should pray for himself, because no man knoweth
what is good for him. Max. Tyrius has a whole Disserta-
tion to prove, that we ought not to pray at all. And others
of the philosophers were probably of the same opinion (o).

(«) Laert. lib. viii. segm. 9.

(o) Our modern deists, who profess to govern themselves by
the law of nature, are divided in their sentiments about prayer.
Some think it to be a duty of natural religion, others will not
allow it to be so. Mr. Chubb is of opinion, that there is an im-
propriety in praying to God, and intimates his suspicion that it
is displeasing to the deity. See his Posthumous Works, Vol. I.

568 The Scriptures give the best Part L

Some of them indeed, and particularly Epictetus and An-
toninus, had juster notions, both of the obligations of the
duty of prayer, and of what should be the properest mat-
ter for our prayers: but as to the objects of prayer, they took
no care to rectify the popular polytheistical notions, but
rather countenanced them. But if the philosophers had
been never so right, or so unanimous in their opinions and
directions as to the duty of prayer, it must have had but
small influence on the generality of mankind, in compari-
son of that which ariseth from the authority of an express
and well attested Revelation from God, enjoining it as our
duty to pray to God, and encouraging us to it by gracious
declarations and promises. Such a Revelation we have
communicated to us in the Holy Scriptures. We have the
satisfaction of being there assured, that though God be
highly exalted above all blessing and praise, yet he alloweth
and requireth us to offer up our praises and thanksgivings
to his Divine Majesty for the benefits we receive from
him, and our prayers and supplications for obtaining the
good things we stand in need of, and for averting the evils
we have reason to fear; not as if he did not know our wants
without our expressing them, but because it is his will that
we should maintain a constant sense of our absolute de-
pendence upon God, and exercise a dutiful resignation and

p. 283. et seq. Blount m his note on Philostratus's Life of Apol-
lonius Tyanaeus, p. 38. havin,^ observed that some of the Hea-
thens used no prayer at all, insinuates in their names several
objections against that duty. Lord Bolingbroke seems some-
times to make it a duly of the law of nature, but is for con-
fining it to the heart, and not for making use of outward ex-
pressions in prayer. The reader may see the are^uments of
MaximuB Tyrius and others against the duty of prayer wcU
answered in Dr. Benson's tract on the End and Design of
Prayer.

Chap. XVII. directions respecting Prayer* 369

affiance, and all those pious affections which become rea-
sonable creatures towards the Supreme Being. We are al-
lowed to come to him as on a throne of Grace, in the name
of Jesus Christ, the great and only Mediator of his own
appointment, with a filial freedom as children to a Father
both able and ready to help us; to apply to him even for
the good things relating to the body and this present
world; provided we ask them, not absolutely, but in an en-
tire resignation to his will, and so far only as he seeth
them to be really fit and needful for us: But especially to
apply to him for blessings of a spiritual nature, and for
his gracious assistances to support and animate us in the
performance of our duty. In the holy Scriptures we have
the most excellent patterns of prayer, and the best directions
for the right performance of it, and are taught both by pre-
cept and example what to pray for, and how to pray. But
at the same time great care is taken to inform us, that our
prayers will be of no avail to our acceptance with God, if
separated from a holy and virtuous practice; that the prayer
of the wicked man persisting in his wickedness is an abomi-
nation unto the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is his
delight.

Vol. I. 3 A

8TQ The Scripture Representation of Part I,

CHAPTER XVIII.

General reflections on the foregoing account of the religion of the antient Pa-
gans. The first reflection is this: that the representations made to us in Scrip-
ture of the deplorable state of religion among the Gentilts are literally true,
and agreeable to fact, and are confirmed by the undoubted monuments of Pa-
ganism. The attempts of some learned men to explain away those representa-
tions considered, and shewn to be vain and insufficient.

1 SHALL conclude the account that has been given of the
state of religion in the Gentile world with some general re-
flections and observations.

It plainly appears, that even the most learned and civi-
lized Heathen nations were sunk into a deplorable state of
darkness and corruption. They were fallen from the know-
ledge and worship of the one true God into the most amaz-
ing idolatry and polytheism. The names, the characters,
and attributes of God were misapplied to a multiplicity of
idol deities. Instead of being led by the works of God to
acknowledge and adore him the glorious author, they for the
most part worshipped the works themselves, and paid that
adoration to them which was due to him alone. Temples
were every where built, altars erected, prayers and sacri-
fices offered to false and fictitious deities, to many of whom
the popular theology attributed some of the worst vices and
passions of frail mortals. They even worshipped evil dae-
mons acknowledged by themselves to be such; and many of
their religious rites, instituted by the command of their
oracles, were so cruel, so obscene and impure, as were only
suited to evil and vicious beings. Many of their philoso-
phers themselves either maintained tenets which tended to
atheism, and to subvert the foundations of all religion; or
they endeavoured to destroy all certainty and evidence.

Ghap. XVIII. the State of the Heathen World. 371

and to introduce an universal doubt and scepticism, where-
by they left men no principles to depend upon, even with
regard to the belief of a God and a Providence. And as to
those of the philosophers who entertained juster and nobler
sentiments of religion, and the Deity, their sublime specula-
tions, which we are so apt to admire, were mixed with very
dangerous errors, and at best were of small advantage to the
people, and confined in a great measure to their schools.
To which it must be added, that in their own practice they
universally fell in with the common idolatry and polytheism,
and instead of reclaiming the people from it, countenanced
it by their maxims, and devised plausible colours to de-
fend it.

The truth of this account has been shewn at large from
the Heathen writers themselves, and is confirmed by all
the remaining monuments of Paganism. And this fully
justifies the representation that is made to us in the Holy
Scriptures of the state of religion in the Heathen world,
especially at the time when the Christian revelation was
first published. St. Paul in the first chapter of his epistle
to the Romans describes the Heathens in general, those es-
pecially of the Roman empire, which was then the most
learned and civilized part of the world, as having arrived
to the most monstrous degree of idolatry and corruption of
manners: that notwithstanding the discoveries made of the
divine nature and perfections in the works of creation,
which left them " without excuse," they " did not glorify
God as God, but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to
be wise they became fools: and changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping
things." And that " they changed the truth of God into a
lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever:" that as " they did not

372 The Scripture Representation of Part I.

like to retain God in their knowledge," so he gave " them
up to a reprobate mind," so that they abandoned themselves
to the most unnatural impurities, and to all kinds of abomi-
nable vice and wickedness. See Rom. i. 17. to the end of
that chapter. St. Paul in his other epistles speaks in the
same strain. Thus in his first to the Thessalonians he saith
of the Gentiles, that " they knew not God," 1 Thess. iv. 5.
And he describes their conversion to Christianity thus, that
they "turned from idols to serve the living and true God:"
where he supposes that whilst they continued in their Gen-
tile state, they served idols, and did not serve the living and
true God. 1 Thess. i. 9. To the Galatians who had been
Gentiles, he saith, " then when ye knew not God, ye did
service unto them which by nature are no gods." Gal. iv. 8.
And in like manner in his epistle to the Ephesians he bids
them remember that they " were in time past Gentiles in the
flesh:" and that at that time they " had no hope, and were
without God in the world," Eph. ii. 11, 12. ideol h t5 Kiafx.»;
not as if they had no notion at all of a Deity, and did not
believe the existence of God, but it is a strong manner of
expression to signify that they were without the right know-
ledge and worship of the only true God, and paid their reli-
gious service not to the true God, but to idol deities. And
in the fourth chapter of that epistle, verse 17, 18. he gives
it as the character of the Gentiles in general, that they had
the ** understanding darkened," being alienated " from the
life of God, through the ignorance that was in them, because
of the bhndness of their hearts." The same apostle tells the
Corinthians that " the things which the Gentiles sacrificed,
they sacrificed to devils, and not to God;" and, says he,
" I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils."
1 Cor. X. 20. If the word ^eti^ovioig be rendered not devils,
as it is by our translators, but dcemons, as some chuse to
render it, it makes no great difftrence. It is certain that
the word ^utftavioy is generally taken in a bad sense in Scrip-

Chap. XVIII. the State of the Heathen World. 373

ture (/>); and which way soever we render the word, it is
plain that the apostle here opposeth the worship of these
daemons to the worship of the one true God, and supposeth
that it was inconsistent with it, and that the one of these
could not be safely joined with the other. In the several
passages which have been produced, it is evident that the
apostle speaks of the Heathens in general. What particular
persons there might be among them, who kept themselves
free from the prevailing corruption and idolatry, it is to
little purpose to enquire. But it has been shewn that their
greatest and wisest men fell in with it. When the apostle
puts the supposition concerning " the uncircumcision" or
uncircumcised Gentiles " keeping the righteousness of the
law, or fulfilling the law," Rom. ii. 26, 27. this seems plain-
ly to be understood of such Gentiles as Cornelius was, wh©,
though uncircumcised, and not of the commonwealth of
Israel, was a devout adorer of the only true God, and of
him only. And indeed no man that was not so could be said
to keep the law, or to fulfil it, of which this was a princi-
pal and fundamental article. And it is evidently of such
persons as Cornelius that St. Peter speaks, when he de-
clares " of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of
persons: but in every nation he that feareth God, and
worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts x. 34,
35. And it may be justly concluded, that Cornelius learned
the knowledge and worship of the one true God by con-
versing with the Jews. Acts x. 22. And probably this was
the case of many other Gentiles at that time. But nothing

{fi) The learned Dr. Cudworth observes, that in the New Tes-
tament, according to the judgment of Origen. Eusebius, and
others of the antient fathers, both these words 'httifAom and 'hottf^.t-
net^ are alike taken always in a worse sense for evil and impure
spirits only. Intel. Syst. p. 264.

3f4 The Scripture Representation of Part L

can be concluded from this as to the general state of the
Heathen world with regard to religion.

I am sensible, that some learned persons, and particular-
ly the eminent Dr. Cudworth, have endeavoured to bring
in St. Paul himself as a voucher, that the Heathens in
general, not only the philosophers, but the vulgar, knew
and worshipped the one true God. And this they attempt
to prove from that apostle's discourse to the Athenians.
What our translators render, " I perceive that in all things
ye are too superstitious," the doctor renders thus, " I per-
ceive that in every thing ye are more than ordinarily reli-
gious." And he thinks the word 5«<o-<5flt<^ev£5-sg»5 is to be taken
there in a good sense. From St. Paul's saying, " the God
whom you ignorantly worship, declare I unto you:" and
afterwards mentioning the God that made the world and all
things in it, the doctor infers two things: " First, that by
the unknown God of the Athenians was meant the only true
God, he who made the world and all things in it, who in
all probability was therefore stiled by them a^j^a^t^ S-go$, be-
cause he is not only invisible, but incomprehensible by mor-
tals." The second thing, which, he says, may be concluded
from hence is, that " the Athenian Pagans did svo-sCtTv, reli-
giously worship the true God, the Lord of heaven and
earth." And having taken notice of the passage which St.
Paul cites from Aratus concerning Zey? or Jupiter, that
" we are his offspring," he says, that " we have here a plain
Scripture acknowledgment, that by the z%v(i of the Greekish
Pagans was sometimes at least meant the true God (^)." It
may be observed, that this learned writer expresses himself
here with some caution and reserve: and if he had carried
it no farther than to say, that by the word Zjv? or Jupiter

{q) Intel. Syst. p. 473, 474, 475.

Chap. XVIII. the State of the Heathen World. 375

among the Pagans was sometimes meant the true God, and
that some persons among them might make use of that name
to signify the one Supreme God, I should not have much
contested it with him. But the point the Doctor should have
proved is, that he whom the generality of the vulgar Pagans
worshipped under the name of Jupiter was the only true
God, and not an idol deity. And it would be a strange
thing if he could produce a Scripture acknowledgment for
this: yet this is what he afterwards attempts. " It is evident,
saith he, that by Aratus's Zfi^, or Jupiter, was really meant
the Supreme God, the Maker of the whole world: which,
confirmed also by St. Paul and the Scripture, ought to be a
matter out of controversy among us. Neither is it reasona-
ble to think, that Aratus was singular in this; but that he
spoke according to the received theology of the Greeks,
and that not only amongst philosophers and learned men,
but even the vulgar also. And since the Latins had the very
same notion of Jupiter that the Greeks had of Zgy^, it can-
not be denied, but that they commonly by their Jupiter
also understood the one Supreme God, the Lord of hea-
ven and earth." Thus according to this very learned writer,
the received theology of the Pagans, both amongst the phi-
losophers and the vulgar, was this, that by the Jupiter they
adored they commonly understood the one true Supreme
God, the Maker of the world, and Lord of heaven and
earth. And this he asserts is so evident that it cannot be
denied. I have a great respect for this excellent author; but
if he had expressed himself more cautiously and modestly
on this head, it would have been better. He seems here to
have been carried away by his charitable prejudices in fa-
vour of the antient Pagans. And I heartily wish there was
good reason to believe, that the account he gives of them and
their religion is a just and true one. But the contrary may
be plainly proved from the Pagan writers themselves, and
from several passages in his own learned work. We are

376 The Scripture Representation of Part L

not to judge of the Pagan religion, and the popular receiv-
ed theology, by some detached passages of particular wri-
ters, but by the general scheme of their religious establish-
ments; by which it appears, that Jupiter was really no more
than the chief of the Pagan idol deities, of the same kind,
though somewhat superior to the rest. I think however,
that whatever his own charity might incline him to suppose,
he should not have put this upon us as confirmed by Scrip-
ture authority. He does not merely say, there might be
some few among the Pagans who knew and worshipped
the one true Supreme God: but he makes this to have been
the common notion and practice of the Heathens in general,
and that under the name of Jupiter they directed their wor-
ship to the one true God, the same whom we adore. I need
not take pains to prove that this is not the idea given us of
the Heathens in the Old Testament (r). And as to the New,
though Dr. Cudworth has endeavoured to avail himself of
St. Paul's authority, whosoever carefully examines the pas-
sages above produced from this great apostle, will be apt to
think that it is scarce possible to reconcile the account he
gives of the general state of the Heathen world with the
Doctor's hypothesis. Indeed what this learned man relies
upon is not any express Scripture declaration, that the Gen-
tiles in general knew and worshipped the one true God,
and that this was the Jupiter they adored; but inferences of
his own from some particular expressions of St. Paul, in-

(r) Many passages might be mentioned to this purpose. But
I shall only take notice of one. The " Heathens," and " those
that know not God and call not on his name," are used as sy-
nonymous expressions. Jer. x. 25. Psal. Ixxix. 6. But I do not
see how this could be truly applied to them, if the one true God
was the chief object of their devotions^ to whom they principally
paid their worship, and offered up their prayers.

Chap. XVIII. the State of the Heathen World, ^77

terpreted after his own way, in opposition to frequent and
express declarations of that apostle. Thus, according to this
learned writer, the Athenians are represented by St. Paul as
" more than ordinarily religious," who devoutly worshipped
the one true God, the Maker and Lord of heaven and earth.
And if this was true concerning the Athenians, it might
be justly said of the Heathens in general, since it admits o£
clear proof that none of the Gentiles were more deeply im-
mersed in the common idolatry and superstition than they
were. Accordingly the Doctor supposes the same thing
concerning the Heathens in general, that the one true God
was the Zevg or Jupiter they commonly adored, not the phi-
losophers only, but the vulgar, both among the Greeks and
Romans^ and he would have us think that St. Paul suppos-
ed it too.

It is scarce worth while to contest it, whether the words
with which the apostle introduces his discourse to the
Athenians had better be translated " superstitious" or " re-
ligious." If the word used in the original be sometimes
taken in a good sense, it cannot be denied that it is often
in the Pagan writers themselves used to signify an exces-
sive superstition. And it may be looked upon as an instance
of St. Paul's prudence, that he chose a word which was
very proper to signify that superstition to which they were
so immoderately addicted, and at the same time was capa-
ble of a softer sense, that he might not too much irritate
them in the beginning of his discourse. But it seems to me
a strange supposition to imagine that Si. Paul intended to
commend the Athenians as being " in every thing more
than ordinarily religious," in the proper and laudable sense
of the word; as if they were in his opinion to an uncom-
mon degree devout adorers of the only true God, the
Maker of heaven and earth. The contrary appears from
the whole strain of his discourse, as well as from what the
sacred historian had observed just before, viz. that while

Vol. I, 3 B

35^8 The Scripture Representation of Part I,

Paul waited at Athens, " his spirit was stirred within him,"
when he " saw the city," Karel^e/Xof — full of idols, or as it
is well rendered, "wholly given to idolatry." Can there be
a plainer proof, that they were not more than ordinarily re-
ligious in the good sense of the word, but grossly and ex-
travagantly idolatrous and superstitious? And this was in-
deed their true character. Pausanias observes, that they
worshipped the gods more than others, and exceeded all
others in their diligence, " In rtt ^sU^'' towards the gods, or
in things relating to the gods (s). And Xenophon in his
account of the Athenian republic says, they had twice as
many festivals as any other cities. And what kind of festi-
vals they were the reader may find by consulting Potter's
Antiquities of Greece, vol. i. from whence it appears, that
they were for the most part founded on the poetical fables
of the gods. So addicted were the Athenians to superstition,
that they were ready to adopt the gods of other countries,
and worshipped them as well as their own. Strabo ob-
serves, that they received many foreign sacra or religious
rites, " TToXXct ruv ^iviKm IfgA'y w«fcg85e|oty," insomuch that they
were ridiculed for it by their own comic writers (?). If
therefore the apostle be supposed here to tell them, that
they were in every thing more than ordinarily religious,
the meaning can only be, that they were uncommonly dili-
gent in what they took to be religion: which they might
be, and yet be strangers to true religion, and addicted to
a false one. And accordingly he begins his discourse with
saying, that as he " passed by, and beheld their devotions
ret rt^uiTfzxrx^'^^ which may signify either their sacred rites,
or the objects of their worship, he " found an altar with
this inscription. To the unknown God:" i. e. to a God

(s) Pausan. Attic, cap. 17.

(0 Strabo, lib. x. p. 722. Amstcl.

€hap. XVIII. the State of the Heathen World. 879

whom, by their own acknowledgment, they did not know.
The whole inscription, according to Oecunienius, ran thus.
" To the gods of Asia, Europe, and Libya or Africa, to
the unknown and strange God. — ^iw uyvco^uKcct^iva,^'' And
it appears from Pausanias, that there were several altars
at Athens to unknown gods. The same thing is testified by
Philostratus. So superstitious were they, that they were
afraid of omitting or neglecting to pay their worship to
any deity known or unknown (w). I am sensible that Dr.
Cudworth gives a different sense to the word " unknown,
God," from what I have here supposed. He thinks all that
the Athenians meant by it was, that God was " invisible"
and " incomprehensible." There might be some pretence
for this, if they had confined this title to one God only;
but, as hath been already hinted, they had altars erected
to the unknown gods. And certain it is, that this was not
the sense in which St. Paul took it: for in that sense he
was an unknown God to St. Paul as well as to the Atheni-
ans. He will always be to Christians as well as to Heathens
invisible and incomprehensible, not to be seen by the bodily
eye, nor fully comprehended by the mind. But St. Paul

{u) There were not only at Athens, but in many other parts
of the Heathen world, altars erected and sacrifices offered to un-
known deities; that they might take in all the gods, both those
whose names they knew, and those whom they were ignorant
of, or concerning whom they were uncertain who they were.
St. Austin informs us, that Varro writ a book concerning the
« Dii certi,'* and another concerning the " Dii incerti." De Civ.
Dei, lib. vi. cap. 3. et lib. vii. cap. 17. A learned author has col-
lected many testimonies to shew that there were altars to the
unknown God or gods among many nations, the Grecians, Ar-
cadians, Lydians, Celtiberians, Arabians, the people of Mar-
seilles, 8cc. See ** The knowledge of Divine Things from Re-
velation only, not from Reason or Nature," p. 242. et seq.

380 The Scripture Representation of Part I.

plainly signifies, that he knew him, though the Athenians
did not, and therefore he came to instruct them in the
knowledge of that God whom they did not know before,
*' The God whom you ignorantly worship," or as the
words might properly be rendered, " the God whom being
ignorant of, Sv ayvoSvTcj, you worship, him declare I unto
you (^)." As if he had said. You have built an altar to a
God, who, you confess, is unknown to you. But I know
him, and am now ready, if you will attend to me, to
publish and declare him to you* The God whom you do
not know, and whom I come to declare, is the only true
God, who made the world and all things that are therein,
and is the only sovereign Lord of heaven and earth.

According to Dr. Cudworth's way of representing it,
St. Paul, by citing what Aratus says of Jupiter, intended
to signify to the Athenians, that the god to whom they
erected an altar as to an unknown deity, was that very Ju-
piter whom they all acknowledged as the chief of the
deities they adored. But certainly they would never have
characterized their Jupiter as an unknown and strange or
foreign god; nor would the apostle have represented him
to them under that notion. It seems plain from the whole
of his discourse, that he here supposeth concerning the
Athenians, what he elsewhere saith of the Gentiles in ge-
neral, that "they knew not" (the one true) " God." The
most natural interpretation therefore seems to be this, that
the apostle according to his accustomed zeal and prudence
takes advantage from their having erected an altar to the
strange and unknown god, which was really an effect of

(jt) The word here is jc^TavygA^is;, wliich properly signifies to
pubhsh things to those thai did not know them before. It is the
word made use of to sij^nify the publishing the gospel to the
Jews and Gentiles who before were ignorant of it.

Chap. XVIII. the State of the Heathen World. 381

their superstition, to declare to them, the one true God
whom they were ignorant of before, and to raise their
thoughts and views to the great Creator and Lord of the
universe, as the only proper object of their adoration.
With the same view he cites a passage from one of their
own poets ( e/ ), to shew that what the poet had said of Ju-

{y) The scholiasl upon Aratus supposes that he speaks of the
Zivi (pvo-tKoi, the Jupiter Physicus, or the air. Dr. Cudworth
finds fault with this, and I think very justly, if the air be under-
stood merely as an inanimate thing But it is not improbable
that Aratus might mean the aether in the Pythagorean sense,
which they held to be animated, and to be the cause of the for-
mation and order of thin.ejs, and to be universally diffused, of
which they supposed the souls of men to be particles: or, which
comes pretty much to the same thing, he might mean the soul
of the world in the Stoical sense. Nor is there any thing in that
whole passage of Aratus, a part of which is cited by the apostle,
but might be said agreeably to the Pythagorean and Stoical no-
tions But St. Paul was not concerned to enquire what were
Aratus*s particular sentiments concerning the Deity: it was
enough for hib purpose, that what the poet said was applicable
to the one true God, however he intended it: or, if we should
suppose Aratus himself to have intended by Jupiter to signify
the one true Supreme God, this would be far from proving that
the Jupiter, whom the Athenians and the Heathens in general
adored, was the one true God: though the apostle might justly
and prudently take advantage from it to lead the Athenians
from their idolatry. There is a remarkable passage of Sopho-
cles, cited by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexan-
drinus, and others of the fathers, though it is not to be found in
any of his works now extant. The purport of it is this: " There is
in truth one, there is one God, who formed the heaven, and the
spacious earth, and the blue swelling sea, and the boisterous
'^ind*.** And then he goes on to blame the folly of mortals,

382 The Unity of God not the general Part I.

piter properly belonged to that only true God whom he
came to declare to them, and to whom he taught them to
offer up a pure and spiritual worship. I have observed be-
fore, that it was no unusual thing among the Pagans to
apply to their Jupiter, and the other deities they adored,
the attributes and works, which are proper to the one true
Supreme God. And the apostle's design in citing this
passage of the poet, was not persuade the Athenians that

" who erring in their hearts, have for a consolation to them in
their calamities, set up images of the gods, made of wood, or
stone, or gold, or ivory, and when they have offered sacrifices to
them, and celebrated festivals to their honour, think they have
acted pioc ly." If we suppose these verses to be genuine, and
that St. Paul had quoted them in his discourse to the Athenians,
which on that supposition he might have done, could it be said,
as it is by Dr. Cudworth with respect to Aratus, that " it is not
reasonable to think that Sophocles was singular in this, but that
he spake according to the received theology of the Greeks, and
that not only among the philosophers and learned men, but even
the vulgar also?'* The contrary is evident: for what is here said
is manifestly opposed to the received theology, and to the reli-
gion and worship then in use among the Athenians and other
Greeks, and to which they were strongly addicted. Whence So-
phocles had this knowledge, or how he came by it, we cannot
pretend to determine. There were rays of light scattered here
and there among the Pagans, which sometimes broke forth in
bright flashes. It may well be supposed, that he, and some others
of the Greeks, might have some acquaintance with the doctrine
of the Jews, whose religion had made a progress in the Lesser
Asia, with which Greece was nearly connected. But which way
soever we suppose him to have come by it, he seems to carry it
farther, if these verses may be depended upon, than even So-
crates or Plato himself; neither of whom ventured to pass a
censure, as Sophocles seems here to do, upon the way of wor-
shipping the gods by images, sacrifices, and festivals to their
honour, but rather expressed their approbation of them.

Chap. XVIII. doctrine of the Pagan World. 38S

the Jupiter whom they ordinarily worshipped was the true
God, but that the God he came to declare to them was the
true Supreme God, to whom alone those characters and
epithets really belonged, which were wrongly applied to the
Pagan Jupiter. /

It confirms the sense we have given of St. Paul's dis-
course, that he here calls the past times of Heathenism
" the times of their ignorance." Ver. 30. And in ver. 27".
he speaks of their " seeking the Lord, if haply they might
feel after him, and find him." Where he seems to compare
them to persons groping in the dark, or to blind men who
seek their way by feeling with their hands. So Polybius, as
cited by Scapula, uses the word *' '<|'jj;i«(p£«»," which we pro-
perly render to " feel after him." And Grotius's note upon
it is this: " Ostendit hsec phrasis rei difficultatem. Nam
palpare aut caecorum est, aut noctu incedentium."

It may help to illustrate this, that St. Paul in his speech
to the Lycaonians, who would have worshipped him and
Barnabas as Jupiter and Mercurius, exhorts them " to turn
from these vanities unto the living God, which made hea-
ven and earth, the sea, and all things that are therein;" and
who had " not left himself without witness, in that he did
good, and gave rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, fill*-
ing men's hearts with food and gladness." Acts xiv. 15, 16,
17. Where he calls the gods the Heathens worshipped, par-
ticularly Jupiter and Mercury, " vanities," and plainly in-
timates, that they did not worship the true God who created
all things by his power, and governeth all things by his
Providence. The Jupiter, whose priest would have offered
sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, was undoubtedly the po-
pular Jupiter of the Pagans. And it is evident, the apostle
was far from supposing, what some have pretended, that
Jupiter and the other Heathen deities were only different
names of the one true God; and that the worship which was
rendered to them was really and intentionally offered to the

384 The Unity of God not the general Part L

one Supreme Being, the Creator, and Lord of heaven and
earth. It has been already observed, that this apostle de-
clares, that " the things which the Gentiles sacrificed they
sacrificed to devils or daemons, and not to God." 1 Cor. x.
20. where he plainly opposes the true God to the popular
Pagan deities, which were the obj:!cts of public worship.
But how could he say this consistently with truth, if the
Jupiter to which they principally offered up their sacrifices
was really the one true Supreme God; and Apollo, Bac-
chus, and the other Pagan divinities, were only so many
different appellations given to the Maker and Lord of the
universe?

The last thing I shall observe here, as urged by those
learned writers who give the most favourable account of the
state of religion in the Pagan world, relates to the passages
produced from Heathen authors to shew that all nations
throughout the world acknowledged and worshipped the
one Supreme God, the sovereign Lord and Governor of the
universe. That an obscure notion of one Supreme Being
obtained among many of the Heathen nations, even among
those that were accounted the most barbarous, who had it
from antient tradition, has been shewn in the second chap-
ter of this work. But it has also been shewn that some of
them did not render any worship to him whom they re-
garded as Supreme, from a notion that he was too far above
them, and that he did not concern himself with them or
their affairs, and therefore they paid their worship wholly
to inferior deities. Others by the Supreme God understood
the sun, or confounded him with the principal of their hero
divinities. And many there were who supposed the domi-
nion and government of things to be divided among a plu-
rality of gods whom they regarded as suprenfie in their
several districts: or if any of them was esteemed to be su-
perior in power and dignity to the rest, yet still he wa»
supposed to be of the same kind and nature with thera. It

Chap. XVIII. Doctrme of the Pagan World. 385

cannot therefore be justly said, that there has been an uni-
versal consent of mankind in the notion of one Supreme
God, though I readily own such a consent as to the exist-
tence of some superior invisible divine Power or Powers:
and that scarce any nation can be mentioned which did not
acknowledge some deity or other. And so far there is, and
has been in all ages, a general consent of mankind against
the atheists. Accordingly Plato and Cicero, and others of
the ahtients before our Saviour's coming, who speak of an
universal consent of mankind concerning the Deity, make
the object of that consent to be not one Supreme God, but
the gods: and the Providence they mention as generally be-
lieved and acknowledged is the Providence of the gods.
Several passages to this purpose have been produced above,
which I need not here repeat. But after Christianity had
made some progress in the world, the advocates for Pagan-
ism pretended that all mankind acknowledged and adored
the one true Supreme God, and there was but one universal
religion among all nations. There is a remarkable passage
of Maximus Tyrius to this purpose which has been often
quoted. I shall give it to the reader in Dr. Cudworth's
translation, which seems to me to be a just one. He asserts,
that " if all men were required to declare their sense con-
cerning God, one would not say one thing and another ano-
ther. No; not the Scythian, nor the Greek, nor the Hyper-
borean.— That in other things we find men speaking very
discordantly from one another; all men as it were differing
from all concerning honest and dishonest, good and evil.
Nevertheless, adds he, in this great war, contention, and
discord, you may find every where throughout the world
one agreeing law and opinion, that there is one God the
King and Father of all, and many gods, the sons of God,
co-reigners together with God: these things both the Greeks
and Barbarians alike affirm, both the inhabitants of the
Vol. I. 3 C

386 The Unity of God not the general Part I.

continent and sea-coast, both the wise and unwise (2)."
Here he evidently puts his own Platonic system upon us as
the universal system of all mankind. But how came he to
know that all nations agreed in this? We have nothing for
it but his own word. He represents it as if there was no
difference among them in their notions of the Divinity: that
if they were required to declare their sense of God, one
would not say one thing and another another, but all would
say the same thing; which is plainly contrary to truth and
fact. For if we enquire into the ideas they had of the Divi-
nity, or of superior invisible powers, we shall find there
was a vast difference among them. " Deos esse nemo ne-
gat," saith Cicero, " quales sint, varium est." And again,
" Multi de diis prava sentiunt." The authority therefore of
Maximus Tyrius is of no great weight.

Dr. Cudworth also cites a passage of Plutarch, de Isid.
et Osir. to the same purpose, which he translates thus.
" The gods are not different in different nations, as if the
Barbarians and Greeks, the southern and northern inhabi-
tants of the globe, had all different gods. But as the sun,
and the moon, and the heaven, and the earth, and the sea,
are common to all, though called by several names, in seve-
ral countries; so one reason ordering these things, and one
Providence dispensing all, and the inferior subserving mi-
nisters thereof having had several names and honours be-
stowed upon them by the laws of several countries, have
been every where worshipped throughout the whole world:

(z) Max. Tyr. dissert, i. p. 5, 6. Oxon. 1677. The learned and
ingenious Dr. Sykes, who endeavours to shew that the Gentiles
by the mere light of nature had generally a knowledge of the
unity and perfections of God, and the other main principles of
natural religion, lays a great stress on this passage. See his
Principles and Connection of Natural and Revealed Religion,
p. 364, 365.

Chap. XVIII. Doctrine of the PaganWorld. 387

and there have been also different symbols consecrated to them,
the better to conduct and lead on men's understanding to di-
vine things: though this hath not been without danger or ha-
zard of casting men upon one or other of these two extremes,
either superstition or atheism («)." Here again, we have
only Plutarch's bare assertion, representing his own opi-
nion as that of all mankind: and in like manner we find him
in the same treatise representing the doctrine of two eter-
nal principles, the one good, the other evil, which he him-
self pleads for, as the universal doctrine of the wise men of
all nations from the most antient times. The passage now
quoted from him, and indeed the whole of that treatise, is
manifestly designed as an apology for the Pagan idolatry
and superstition, under a pretence that their multiform
worship, paid to a multiplicity of deities, was only an ad-
dress to the one Supreme God under different names and
symbols. He denies that there are different gods worship-
ped in different countries, and yet he had observed but a

{a) Plutarch. Oper. torn. ii. p. 377. F. 378. A. Edit. Francof.
The Chevalier Ramsay in his Principles of Natural and Revealed
Religion, vol. ii. p. 87. quoting this passage of Plutarch makes
this reflection upon it: that "it is as unjust and unreasonable in
the Christian priests to call the Heathens polytheists, as it would
be in the Pagans to call the Europeans so, because the French
call him Dieu, the English God, the Italians Dio, &c." This
charge, if it were true, would equally hold against the Scrip-
tures, which certainly represent the Heathens as polytheists, as
against the Christian priests. But that there was a great deal
more in the Heathen polytheism than this gentleman would
make us believe, may be proved with the clearest evidence, and
has been sufficiently shewn in the course of this work. Nor is
any great stress to be laid upon a few passages of some of the
philosophers, who endeavoured to put plausible colours upon the
Pagan idolauy, especially after Christianity had made its public
appearance.

388 The Unity of God not the general Part I.

little before that the Egyptians supposed their gods to be
not common to all men, but pejculiar to themselves. And
elsewhere he says that all agree that there are gods: but
concerning their number, their order, their essence and
power, there is great dissention among them. The philoso-
phers differ from the poets and t»le legislators, and these
from the philosophers. See his Amator. Oper, torn. II. p.
763. C, D. Immediately after the passage above cited from
him, he recommends philosophy as necessary to guide men
to a right understanding of their sacred rites; and says,
they ought to be taken in that sense which is most consist-
ent with reason. It is plain from this, that he was resolved,
if he found them not consistent with reason, to make them
appear so, and to put a sense upon them which should co-
ver their absurdity. And indeed he has given several spe-
cimens of this way of interpretation in that work, though
many of his allegorical explications are strangely forced
and unnatural. He supposes here that without the guidance
of philosophy the people would not rightly understand the
sacred rites. But it does not appear that the people consult-
ed the philosophers about their deities, or the worship they
rendered to them. They had always been accustomed to
v/orship those as so many different deities, whom some of
the philosophers represented as only different names of one
God, and they paid little regard to those philosophical in-
terpretations, which had no effect on the public worship.
And indeed, if they had hearkened to the philosophers, it
would not have much mended the matter; since it has been
shewn that the most eminent of them, instead of reclaiming
the people from their idolatry and superstition, rather en-
couraged them in it, and by deifying the things of nature,
opened a way to the most gross and extensive idolatry.
The manner in which Plutarch concludes this passage be-
trays a consciousness, that after all his attempts to give a
plausible account of the Heathen theology, there was great

Chap. XVIII. Doctrine of the Pagan World, 389

danger of its precipitating men either into an extravagant
superstition, or into atheism.

I readily own that at the time when Maximus Tyrius, Plu-
tarch, and Apuleius wrote, who all talk in the same strain,
the unity of God was far more generally known and ac-
knowledged among the Pagan nations than before. But this
was not owing to the reasoning of the philosophers, but to
the light of Christianity, which then became generally dif-
fused, and for which the Jewish revelation had prepared
the way. ] ustin Martyr, who lived nearly about the same
time with those philosophers I have mentioned, declares
that " there was no part of mankind, whether Greeks or
Barbarians, or by whatsoever name they are called, where
praises and thanksgivings were not offered to the Father
and Maker of the universe, in the name of a crucified, Je-
sus (^)." Supposing the manner of expression to be hyper-
bolical, yet it shews that it was well known that Christianity
had then produced great effects, in spreading the knowledge
of the true God among the nations, even among the remote
and barbarous.

In the preceding ages of Paganism the doctrine of the
unity was a secret only committed to a few, who did not
publish it to the people. This appears from the testimonies
produced even by those learned authors themselves, who
want to make it pass for the general doctrine of the Pagan
world. For they either suppose it to have been taught in
the Mysteries which were celebrated in different nations,
or to have made a part of the arcane theology of the Egyp-
tians, Chaldeans, Persians, &c.

As to the mysteries, if, as the learned author of the Di-
vine Legation of Moses has endeavoured to prove, the doc-
trine of the one Supreme God, the Creator and Governor

(b) Dial, cum Tryph. Oper. p. 345. C. Paris 1636.

S90 The Unity of God not the general Part I.

of the world, was taught there, it was the peculiar doctrine
of the greater mysteries, communicated under the most
tremendous seal of secrecy to such only of the initiated as
were fit to be intrusted with the secret, and who were under
the most solemn obligations not to reveal it. And can it
with any consistency be supposed, that this would have
been reserved for the mysteries as a profound secret which
it was not lawful to reveal, if it was a thing which the peo-
ple in general were acquainted with before, and which was
an article of the common received religion? But injustice
to the learned author last referred to it must be owned, that
he is not chargeable with this inconsistency. He says, " the
knowledge of God was communicated to a few select Gen-
tiles in the mysteries celebrated in secret (c)." That " they
shut up the glory of God in their mysteries, from a false
notion, that the vulgar knowledge of God would be injuri-
ous to society:" and he adds, that " in the open worship of
Paganism, either public or particular, the creature was the
sole object of adoration (<^)«"

The learned Dr. Sykes, who seems very desirous to make
the doctrine of the unity and perfections of the Deity pass for
the universal doctrine of the Pagans, and which they derived
not from revelation or tradition, but from the mere light of
nature, yet is obliged to make acknowledgments which are
no way favourable to his scheme. He says, that " the mys-
teries among the Heathens were of that kind as to set them
right in many parts of their theology: but that it was very
difficult for them to get admission to those who could or
would set them right: and that it is very plain, that their best
and wisest men travelled from Greece into Egypt, to get at

Chap. XVIII. Doctrine of the Pagan World. 391

the knowledge of the unity of God, and the like important
truths (e)." And this surely they would not have done, if it
had been a doctrine commonly known among the people
by the mere light of nature. The same ingenious writer
having said, that " the Egyptians did teach one only Su-
preme Mind, the Maker and Governor of all," observer,
that " this was a part of the secret theology of the Egyp
tians, which was imparted only to their kings and priests^'
and that Pythagoras was at so much pains as to be circum-
cised, and had the king's letters to the priests, in order to
his getting acquainted with their theology (y)." And he
there farther observes, that " the grand secret of the Pytha-
gorean philosophy was also this, That there is one God, the
Supreme Governor of all." And every one knows how care-
ful Pythagoras and his followers were to keep the secrets of
their philosophy concealed from the people: nor were they
communicated even to their own disciples, till after a long
and difficult preparation. He also supposes, that Plato had
his notions of God from Egypt (_§-). And this philosopher,
in conformity to the Egyptian maxims, looked upon it to be
a dangerous thing to declare it openly to the people. It is
easy to see that these suppositions are not very consistent
with the hypothesis, that the knowledge of the one true
God, his perfections and providence, was the common doc-
trine of the Pagan world.

The eminent Dr. Cudworth frequently observes, that
" from the antient Egyptian theology the Greekish and
European is derived." And he has taken a great deal of
pains to shew, that " the Egyptians had among them an ac-
knowledgment of one Supreme universal Numen." This is

(e) Connexion of Natural and Revealed Religion, p. 383.
(/) Ibid. p. 475.
{g) Ibid. p. 480. 494.

392 The Unity of God not the general Part I.

the subject of the 18th section of the^ 4th chapter of his
Intellectual System: though I must confess, if this be
understood of the one true God, the proofs that are
brought for it throughout that long section, which takes
up near fifty pages, do not seem to me to be satisfactory.
He himself asserts, and it appears to be so from the tes-
timonies produced by him, that " as well according to the
Greeks as the Egyptians, the first or Supreme God, and*"
the TO Tcecv or the universe, were really the same thing (A)*"
But if it should be granted, that the Egyptian wise men
had right notions of the one Supreme God, the doctor
himself represents this as a part of their arcane theology,
which was imparted to a very few, and carefully concealed
from the people.

I think enough has been said to shew, that there is no
sufficient ground for what this learned writer asserts, that
according to the received theology both of the Greeks and
Latins, not only the philosophers and wise men, but even
the vulgar Pagans, acknowledged the one Supreme God,
the Lord of heaven and earth, the same whom we adore,
and directed their worship to him under the name of Ju-
piter. And indeed there are several passages in his book
not very consistent with this scheme. He distinguishes the
vulgar theology of the Pagans, under which he com-
prehends both the poetical and mythical^ and the civil or
political theology, from the natural and true theology (/).
And he seems to confine what he says of the worshipping
the one true God under different names and titles to those
whom he calls the " more intelligent Pagans (i^)." Who
these are he does not distinctly inform us, but probably

{h) Intel. Syst. p. 345.
(0 Ibid. p. 47r.
(k) Ibid. p. 265.

Chap. XVIII* Doctrine of the Pagan World. 393

he intends to distinguish them from the generality of the
Vulgar. And it appears from several passages which have
been produced from him in the course of this work, that
even the most learned among the Pagans were for the most
part greatly deficient and wrong in their notions of the
one Supreme God: that all of them in general were world-
worshippers, and worshipped the several parts of this ma-
terial system, which they looked upon to be animated,
as parts and members of the Divinity: that the most refined
of them agreed in these two things, the breaking and crumb-
ling the one simple Deity, and multiplying it into many
gods: and then in theologizing the whole world, and deify-
ing the natures of things, accidents, and inanimate bodies
(/): that the people by Jupiter, the chief of their deities^
generally understood the Jupiter of the poets and mytholo-
gists: and that there was a perpetual jumble or mixture of
herology, or the history of their hero gods, and physiology^
along with their theology: that their public political worship
had an appearance of a plurality of distinct independent di-
vinities, and that the people regarded and worshipped them
as such: and that they were generally strangers to what he
calls the recondite theology of the Pagans, viz. that the one
God was worshipped under different names and manifesta-
tions: these concessions, and others of the like kind, which
this learned author is frequently obliged to make, do in
reality overthrow the h) pothesis which he takes so much
pains to establish.

(/) Intel. Syst. p. 533, 533,
Vol, I. 3D

;94 The state of the Heathen World no Part L

CHAPTER XIX.

A second general reflection. The corruption of religion in the Heathen world is
no just objection against the wisdom and goodness of Divine Providence. God
did not leave himself without witness amongst them. They had for a long time
some remains of an tient tradition originally derived from Revelation. Besides
which, they had the standing evidences of a Deity in his wonderful works.
The Jewish Revelation was originally designed to give a check to the growing
idolatry, and had a tendency to spread the knowledge and worship of the one
true God among the nations: and it actually had that effect in mauy instances.
If the generality of the Pagans made no use of these advantages, but still per-
sisted in their idolatry and polytheism, the fault is not to be charged upon God,
but upon themselves.

1 HE representation which hath been made of the state
of the Heathen world may possibly give occasion to the
enemies of all religion, to arraign the wisdom, the right-
eousness, and goodness of Divine Providence. It may
seem scarce reconcilable to the moral administration of
God, supposing him to concern himself about mankind, to
leave all nations in general to continue for many ages in
such a deplorable state of darkness, superstition, and idola-
try, without affording them any means to guard against it,
or recover them from it. And if this were really the case,
it might seem to furnish a strong objection against Provi-
dence: but I shall no',v proceed to shew that this is far
from being a just and fair account of this matter.

It hath been already observed, that God gave a sufficient
Revelation of himself and of his will to the first parents and
ancestors of the human race, before and after the flood, to
be by them transmitted to their posterity: that besides the
general revelations made to Adam and Noah, and which
through them were promulgatt^d to the whole human race,
God was pleased from lime to time in those early ages to
make particular discoveries of himself to particular persons

Chap. XIX. objection against Divine Providence. 395

in different countries, which had a tendency to preserve the
knowledge of the one true God, of his Providence, and the
worship due to him: that considerable remains of the an-
tient primitive religion and traditions continued for some
time among the nations, and which they v,\r^ under the
strongest obligations to mairrcain in their purity: and that
the standing evidences of a Deity in the works of Creation
and Providence, concurred to give an additional weight to
those traditions concerning the one true God, the great
Creator and Governor of the world. Ft>r though it has
been matter of controversy, whether men that had not heard
of a Deity, could, if left to themselves without instruction,
have come to the knowledge of the one true God merely by
the unassisted force of their own reason; yet it is acknow-
ledged by all, that when once the idea of God has been
known and communicated, the consideration of his wonder-
ful works has a manifest tendency, if duly improved, to
preserve that idea, which is agreeable to the common rea-
son of mankind. In this respect God never left himself
without witness in any age or nation of the world. Taking
all this together, it cannot be denied, that enough was done
on God's part in his dispensations towards the human race to
keep up a sense of the Deity, and the knowledge and prac-
tice of religion in the world. And if he had done no more
in an extraordinary way, but had after this left men wholly
to the light of nature and reason, strengthened with those
traditionary helps which were originally owing to Divine
Revelation, none could have reasonably found fault.

In was in Chaldea, Canaan, Egypt, and the neighbour-
ing countries, that the great corruption first began; or at
least these were the places where it made the most con-
siderable progress, and from whence it seems to have been
derived to other nations. And accordingly it pleased God
in his wise and good Providence to take proper methods for
putting an early check to the growing corruption in those

396 Means of Knowledge granted to the Heathens, Part I.

parts of the world whore it chiefly prevailed. To this pur-
pose he called Abrahi m, and made extraordinary discove-
ries of his will to him, who was a person of great emmence,
and an illustrious example of faith and piety» The fame of
his wisdom and virtue has spread far and w ide among the
nations, as appears from the testimonies of Berosus, Heca-
taeus, and Nicholaus Damascenus, cited by Josephus, as also
from what is said of him by Alexander Polyhistor, Eupo-
lemus, Artapanus, and others, whose testimonies may be
seen in Eusebius (72). And his name is mentioned with ho-
nour all over the east to this day. fie sojourned in Chaldea,
in Egypt, and in Canaan, w here also lived that eminent per-
son Melchisedek, and others, among whom the patriarchal
religion was still preserved. Abraham appears, by the ac-
count given of him, to havelaeen very careful to instruct his
household, which was very numerous, in the true religion.
Gen. xviii. 19. And from him, by Hagar and Keturah,
proceeded many and great nations^ among whom the know-
ledge and worship of the one true God, and religion in its
main fundamental articles, seems to have continued for
some ages. This may be gathered from several passages in
the book of Job. And the same might probably appear con-
cerning some other nations, if we were better acquainted
with the antient history of mankind. But particularly care
was taken to preserve the true religion in the line by Isaac,
the heir of Abraham's faith and of the promises, from
whom came Esau and Jacob and their numerous descen-
dants. The advancement of Joseph in Egypt by an extraor-
dinary Providence, and the settling of Jacob and his family
there, which soon grew up into a nation, and among some
of whom at least the knowledge of the true God was still

(n) Prsep. Evangel, lib. ix. cap. 16, 17, 18, 19.

Chap. XIX. The Jewish RevelatioJi of advantage ^^c. 397

in some measure maintained, ought to have had a good ef-
fect upon the Egyptians.

It is probable, that there were for a long time particular
persons among the nations, who were not as yet infected
with the common idolatry. But their authority and influ-
ence was of small weight, and little regarded. It pleased
God therefore in his great wisdom and goodness towards
mankind, as a farther preservative against the spreading
idolatry, which was in danger of becoming universal, to
make discoveries of his will not merely to a few particu-
lar persons, but to a whole nation set apart for that pur-
pose. By an extraordinary divine interposition, a consti-
tution of a peculiar kind was established, the fundamental
principle of which was, the acknowledgment and adora-
tion of the one living and true God, and of him only. And
to give weight to this constitution^ which was so different
from those established by the legislators in other countries,
who made idolatry and polytheism the basis of their seve-
veral polities, its divine authority was confirmed by the
most illustrious attestations, and by a series of wonderful
acts, which exhibited the most amazing displays of his un-
equalled power and glory. Such was the Mosaic constitu-
tion; which was introduced with a glorious triumph over
idol deities even in Egypt the principal seat of idolatry,
and was attended with such circumstances, as were pecu-
liarly fitted to awaken and engage the attention of man-
kind. The people among whom this constitution and polity
was erected, were not placed in a remote and obscure cor-
ner of the earth, but in such a situation as was admirably
fitted for diffusing the knowledge of their religion and laws.
They were placed in the center of the then known world,
between Egypt and Arabia on the one hand, anj Syria,
Chaldea, and Assyria on the other, among whom the first
great kingdoms were erected, and from whence knowledge
and learning seems to have been derived to the western na-

398 The Jewish Revelation of Part I.

tions. And they were also in the neighbourhood of Sidon
and Tyre, the greatest emporiums in the world, from
whence ships went to all parts, and who planted colonies in
the most distant countries. Nor were the Israelites them-
selves a very small and contemptible people. Considering
the amazing multiplication of their nation, they bore no
very inconsiderable proportion to the numbers of the rest
of mankind in those ages of the world (o). And their pecu-
liar polity, together with the extraordinary acts of the Di-
vine Providence towards them, had a natural tendency to
put the neighbouring people upon making an enquiry into
their religion and laws, which would be apt to lead them to
the acknowledgment and adoration of the one true God, and
to discover to them the folly and unreasonableness of their
own superstition and idolatry. And that this was really part
of the design which the Divine Wisdom had in view in his
dispensations towards the people of Israel, appeareth from
several express passages of Scripture (/?). Their laws in-
deed were so contrived as to keep them distinct from other
people, and it was necessary for wise ends they should be
so; but they were ready to receive among them those of
other nations, who were willing to forsake idolatry, and to
worhip the one true God, the Creator of the universe, and
him only. In the most flourishing times of their state, par-
ticularly in the reigns of David and Solomon, they had an
extensive dominion and correspondence. And afterwards
they had frequent intercourse with Egypt, Syria, Assyria,
Babylonia, and Persia. And if we consider what is related

(o)See concerning this the Postscript to Dr. Waterland*s
Scripture vindicated, part 2d. p. 138, 139.

(/z) See particularly Exod. vii. 5. ix. 16. xiv. 4. Numb. xiv. 13,
14, 21. Deut. iv. 6. 1 Kings viii. 41, 42, 43. Psal. xxii. 27. Ixvii.
2,3. Ixviii. 29,31, 32.

Chap. XIX. advantage to the Heathen Nations, 399

concerning Hiram king of Tyre, and the queen of Sheba,
as well as the memorable decrees of Nebuchadnezzar king
Babylon, Darius the Mede, Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes, and
Artaxerxes, kings of Persia, the greatest monarchs then
upon earth, and who published to the world the veneration
they had for the God whom the Israelites adored, as the
great Lord of the universe; and if to this be added the
eminent advancement of Daniel, and his three companions,
who were zealous adorers of the Deity, in opposition to all
idolatry; and afterwards the great power and authority of
Esther and Mordecai, and the special favour shewn to the
Jews in the reign of king Ahasuerus, when we are told,
that " many of the people of the land became Jews:" if we
consider these things, it is very probable, that the fame of
their laws, and of the remarkable interpositions of Divine
Providence in their favour, whilst they continued in the
observation of those laws, as well as of the calamities which
had befallen them when they fell off from their law to the
worship of idol deities, was diffused far and wide among
the nations. And this might contribute in more instances
than is commonly imagined to keep up the knowledge of the
one true God, the Maker and Lord of the universe, and to
give some check to the prevailing idolatry.

I am sensible that there are many who are very unwilling to-
acknowledge that the Gentiles, or any of their great and wise
men, received any great advantage from the Jews with respect
to the knowledge of the one true God {(f). And for this pur-

(V) It is a thing well known that many of the primitive fathers
of the Christian church insisted upon it, that the Greeks borrow*
ed their learning and knowledge from the Hebrews. And it can-
not be denied, that some of those good men carried this too far,
and were ready to catch at any thing in the writings of the
Greek philosophers and poets, which seemed to bear even the

400 The Jewish Revelation of Part I,

pose they represent them as the most despicable people upon
earth, and for whom all other nations had the utmost con-
tempt and aversion. That the populace hated and despised

most distant resemblance to what might be found in the books
of Moses and the prophets. In opposition to this some of the^
moderns have gone into the contrary extreme. An ingenious and
learned writer, whom I have had occasion to mention before,
has taken a great deal of pains to examine and expose the in-
stances produced by the Fathers in support of their hypothesis.*
But supposing those instances to have been wrong chosen
(though I do not think that he has proved that they are all so)
it would only shew that they were mistaken in those particular
instances, but not that the notion itself is absurd and false. He
readily allows, and even asserts, that the Greek philosophers
learned many things from the Egyptians and Chaldeans, but will
by no means grant they learned any thing from the Hebrews.
Yet he himself observes, that " it is certain Moses lived long
before any of the Greek philosophers; that the first good things
any of them have said about God, the creation of the world, &c.
were said by Moses, and the prophets, and were said before any
of their philosophers pretended to advance such notionsf." He
adds indeed that »* Egypt taught this principle as well as Judea,
and so did the Magians.** But we have no authentic monuments
to assure us of the antient theology of the Egyptians and Ma-
gians, as we have concerning that of the Hebrews. Since there-
fore the Greeks, by his own acknowledgment, travelled into the
East " to get at the knowledge of the Unity, and the like impor-
tant truths of natural religion^," what reason can be assigned
why the Jews alone of all the eastern nations should be excluded,
when we have much greater certainty that they taught these
articles long before the Greek philosophers flourished, than we
have concerning any of the other nations to which they travelled
for knowledge? It is generally agreed among the antients that

* Dr. Sykes'a Principles and Connexion of Natural and Revealed Reli-
gion, p. 440, et seq.
t Ibid, p 493.
4 Ibid. p. 383.

Chap. XIX. advantage to the Heathen Nations. 401

them and their religion, and that many of the philosophers
affected to do so too, is very true^ but that this was not
universally the case admits of a clear proof. Any man

Pythagoras travelled into I^gypt; and the same writers who in-
form us of this, do also acquaint us that he went into Phoenicia
and Babylon, and continued there several years; and at Babylon
the Jews were at that time well known. And Porphyry in his
Life of Pythagoras, as cited by our learned author himself, ex-
pressly says, that he noi only travelled among the Egyptians and
Arabians, but also went to the Hebrews and Chaldeans in order
to acquire learning. The same may well be supposed concern-
ing Piato, who imitated Pythagoras in his travels. The Doctor
indeed objects, that there was no translation of the Jewish
Scriptures into Greek, so early as the days of Pythag^oras, or even
as the time of Plato: but this does not hinder, but that they
might have opportunities of conversing with some of the Jews
in Egypt, Phoenicia, or Chaldea. The Egyptian and Chaldean
language was also foreign both to Pythagoras and Plato, and yet
the doctor supposes, that they took from them several of their
notions and principles: so it might be with regard to the Jews,
among whom the Phoenician, Chaldee, or SyriAc language was
then in common use. In Plato's time there were no doubt many
of the Jews that understood Greek; and they had been for a long
time settled in the Lesser Asia, as well as in many parts of the
East. Lsee therefore no absurdity in supposing with Jusiin Mar-
tyr, and others of the fathers, though Dr. Sykes blames them for
it, that Plato might borrow some of his sublime notions concern-
ing God from the Jews, or at least from those that had them
from the Jews; which might have been the case of some of the
Egyptians themselves. For it appears from the express testimony
of Scripture, that the Egyptians had a high veneration for
Moses. " The man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt,
in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people."
Exod. xi. 3. And considering the intercourse that was carried on
from time to time between Egypt and Judea, both in the time
of Solomon, and afterwards, it is not improbable that some of
their wise men might desire to have access to the Jewish law,
Vol. I. 3 E

40^ The Jewish Revelation of Part I.

will be convinced of this that impartially considers the testi-
monies produced by Eusebius from Heathen authors in the
ninth book of his Evangelical Preparation. Theophrastus,
as cited by Porphyry, represents the Jews as a nation or
generation of philosophers, " <p$y^9tr6(pot ra y«M$ ovTg$," and
who were wont to converse with one another concerning the
Divinity, " «•«§/ t5 $•«/»," to whom they offered up their
prayers and vows (r). Hecataeus of Abdera, who was not
only a philosopher, but a man well versed in affairs, gives
an advantageous account of the Jews, as Josephus has
shewn in his first book against Apion. And Origen says,
that this Hecataeus in his history of the Jews, which was
extant in his time, expresses his admiration of the wisdom
of that nation (s). Megasthenes, in a passage quoted by
Clemens Alexandrinus, ranks those " that a^^ called Jews
in S. ria" with the " Brachmans in India," who were of
the highest reputation for wisdom among the pagans, and
represents them as having taught the same things with
the Greek philosophers (t)» By comparing this with what
Strabo tells us from Megasthenes, it appears that the things
here referred to are such as these; that the world had a
beginning and shall have an end, that God made and go-
verns it, and pervades the whole, and that the earth was
made out of a watry mass (li). And as it is well knov/n

and to some of their writings, so far at least as to learn some
things from thein, of which they made their own use, though
they did not think proper to acknowledge it.

(r) Porphyr. De Abstin. lib. i. Euseb. Prsepar. Evangel, lib.
ix. cap. 2.

(a) Origen contra Cels. lib. i. p. 13. and Spenser's notes
upon it.

{t) Ap. Euseb. ubi supra, lib. ix. cap. 6.

{u) Strabo, lib. xv. p. 1040. A. Amstel.

Chap. XIX. advantage to the Heathen Nations, 403

that the Greek philosophers travelled into the East for
knowledge, the Jews may well be reckoned among those
from whom they derived these principles. In like manner
Numenius, a famous Pythagorean philosopher, in his book
zs-i^t recyxB-Hi speaking of the 3oV^«Tflt, the doctrines and in-
stitutes, in use among the most celebrated nations, mentions
the Jews along with the Brachmans, the Magi, and the
Egyptians. And Origen informs us concerning the same
Numenius, who, he says, was a person of great learning,
that he reckons the Jews among the nations which believe
God to be incorporeal; and that he was not ashamed to
make use of the words of their prophets, and to interpret
their figurative ways of expression (a?), Artapanus wrote a
book concerning the Jews, quoted by Alexander Polyhistor,
large extracts of which are preserved by Eusebius; and
though his account is mixed with fables, it serves to shew
the high opinion the Heathens themselves entertained of
Moses. Among other things he says of him, that he deli-
vered every thing useful to mankind; that the Egyptian
priests counted him worthy of divine honour, and attributed
to him the invention of philosophy, and called him Hermes
or Mercury (?/). Eupolemus calls him the first wise man,
" To'v ir^Srov o'o(pov (z)." And Strabo in his account of the
Jews speaks very honourably of Moses as having entertain-
ed nobler notions of the Divinity than the Egyptians, or
Libyans, or Greeks. He makes the cause of his forsaking
Egypt to be his being dissatisfied with the notions and wor-
ship of the Deity which obtained there: and that many
good men, and who honoured the Deity, " wdAAo/ Ti^avm tI
3-i7<»v," accompanied him. And that those who succeeded

(x) Origen contra Cels. lib. i. p. 13.

(i/) Apud Euseb. ubi supra, lib. ix. cap. 27.

(z) Ibid. cap. 26.

404 The Jewish Revelation of Part I.

him continued for some time to be workers of righteous-
ness, and to be truly pious worshippers of God, '' 'hMtat-
TT^icyivres fj ^«ec-ete *$ uXv>eai ovre^ (*)•" In like manner Justin
out of Irogus Pompcius praises the antient Jews for their
justice joined with religion. " Justitia religione permixta."
That great man Varro plainly signifies that he thought the
Jews were in the right in worshipping one God, and
without an image. He gives it indeed as his opinion,
that they worshipped Jupiter, only they called him by ano-
ther name: where by Jupiter he means the highest God in
the philosophical sense, which according to him was the
soul of the world. St. Austin, who mentions this passage
of Varro, represents him as not knowing what he said
when he spoke thus, but that this however might be con-
cluded from it, that he who was the most learned of the
Romans and a man of so great knowledge, her- by gave
testimony that the God of the prophets, and whom the
Jews worshipped, was in his opinion the Supreme God,
" Ipse est deus quern Varro doctissimus Romanorum
Jovem putat, nesciens quid loquatur. Quod ideo comme-
morandum putavi, quoniam vir tantse scientise, nee nullum
istum deum potuit existimare nee vilem. Hunc enim eum
esse credidit quem summum putavit Deum («)." Porphyry
in his first book of the Philosophy of Oracles produces an
oracle of Apollo, which speaking of those who knew and
taught " the way of the blessed," particularly mentions the
" Egyptians, Assyrians, or Chaldeans," and the '^ whole na-
tion of the Hebrews." In another oracle mentioned by the
same author it is said, that the Chaldeans and Hebrews
" alone obtained wisdom, purely worshipping God the

(*) Strabo, lib. xvi. p. 1104.

(a) Augustin.^e Civ. Dei, lib. xix. cap. 22. p. 428. compared
with lib. iii. cap. 9. p. 74. et lib. iv. cap. 31. p. 87.

Chap. XIX. advantage to the Heathen Nations* 405

eternal or self-originate king, — ocvroyiviixcv «i/«exT«." Another
oracle is there also quoted in which they are called " «§/-
^jjAjjTfl/ 'E^^utoiy illustrious or worthy to be emulated."
Though little stress is to be laid on the testimony of
Apollo's oracles, it shews the opinion which had obtained
among the Heathens themselves of the wisdom and reli-
gion of the Hebrews. For if their fame had not been far
spread on this account, the oracle would scarce have des-
cribed them under that character. To all which may be add-
ed the decrees made in their favour by the Romans and
other states, in which honourable mention is made of them,
and they are allowed to observe their own laws and customs
without disturbance. Many of these are produced by Jo-
sephus out of the public records, in the tenth chapter of tlie
fourteenth book of his Jewish Antiquities. The decree of
the city of Halicarnassus is particularly remarkable, which
is introduced by saying, '' since we have ever a great re-
gard to piety towards God and holiness, we have decreed
that as many men and women of the Jews as are willing
so to do may celebrate their Sabbath, and perform their
holy offices according to the Jewish laws, and may have
their Proseuchse at the sea side, according to the custom of
their forefathers (^)."

(6) It may not be improper here to observe, that the peculiar
name of God, which was in the highest veneration among the
Jews, and whereby the one true God was most properly denoted
as the self-existent Being, was not unknown to the GeriLiles.
Diodorus Siculus tells us of Moses the lawgiver of the Jews,
that he declared that the God who is called Ixai delivered his
laws to him *. Philo Biblius, the translator of Sanchouiaihon*s
Phoenician history, calls him Uvut, where he pretends that San-
choniathon received his history from Jerombaal the pr.cst of the
God Uveify who was near the time of Moses, and lived before the

* Diod. Sic. Biblioth. lib. i.

40ft The yeivish Revelation of Part I.

From these several testimonies, to which others might
be added, it appears, that notwithstanding the popular pre-
judices against the Jews, there were not a few among the
Heathens, that had an esteem for them and a good opinion
of their laws. And as it was well known, that they wor-
shipped one only God, the Maker of heaven and earth, it
is very probable that some of those passages which are ad- •
mired in the Pagan writers, such as that of Sophocles and
Aratus above-mentioned, might have been originally owing
to light derived from the Hebrews, Many of them, from
the beginning of the Persian empire, were not only scat-
tered abroad through Persia, Babylonia, and other parts of
the east, but were seated in the Lesser Asia. And Provi-
dence ordered it so that their numbers continually in-
creased, and their dispersions answered a valuable end.
Cicero speaks of it as a thing well known, that the Jews
were v/ont to send gold every year from Italy, and all the

Trojan war *. Macrobius tells us, that the oracle of the Clarian
Apolloj being consulted which of the gods it was that was called
Icta^ answered, call him that is " the highest of the gods Icca"
Where he speaks of him as the Supreme Deity, though after-
wards as might be expected from the oracle, he applies it to the
sun t« It is also probable that the name Jovis and Jovis Pater,
which was abbreviated into Jupiter, was derived from Jehovah,
and as this name found its way into Italy in the most antient
times, so might the notion signified by it be also communicated.
And indeed some remarkable traces of the antient primitive re-
ligion seem to have continued in Italy in the first times of the
Roman state; though afterwards this venerable name, which
was originally designed to signify the one true God, became
transferred to the chief of the idol deities, to whom the divine
attributes and worship were also ascribed.

* Apud Euseb. Prxp. Evangel, lib. i. cap. 9. p. 31. A, B.
t Macrob. Saturnal. lib. i. cap. 18.

Chap. XIX. advantage to the Heathen Nations, 40y

Roman provinces, to their temple at Jerusalem (c). The
elder Agrippa, in a letter written to the emperor Caligula,
of which Phiio gives us an account, tells him, that both
the continent and the most remarkable islands were full of
Jewish colonies; and that scarce any country of note could
be mentioned in which some of them had not their resi-
dence (fl^). To the same purpose Agrippa the younger, in
a speech to the Jews, endeavours to dissuade them from
entering into a war with the Romans from this considera-
tion, that they would thereby expose their countrymen to
ruin; for that there was not a people upon earth which
had not some portion of their nation among them {e).
The same thing is said by Philo, who also affirms, that
there were not less than a million of Jews in Alexandria,
and other parts of Egypt (y). And Strabo, as cited by
Josephus, saith, that " the Jews had already gotten into all
cities:" that it is not easy to find a place in the habitable
earth, which hath not admitted that tribe of men amongst
them: and that many imitated their manner of living, and
made use of the same laws. He particularly observes, that
" a large part of the city of Alexandria was peculiarly al-
lotted to them: and that they v/ere allowed to be governed
by their own laws (^)." Seneca in his book De Supersti-
tione, as cited by St. Austin, at the same time that he dis-
covers a very strong prejudice against the Jews, and
blames their rites, especially their solemnizing the Sabbath,
as an idle superstition, yet signifies, that this and other
rites of theirs prevailed very much among the nations.
" Cum interim usque eo sceleratissimse gentis consuetuda

{d) Philo in Legat. ad Caiuni, Oper. p. 1031, 103:

(<r) Joseph, de Bel. .Tud. lib. ii. cap. 16.

(/) Philo in Flac. Opera, p. 971.

(S* ) Apud Joseph. Antiq. lib. xiv. cap. 7. sect. 3,

408 The Jewish Revelation of Part I-

convaluit, ut per omnes fere terras recepta sit: victi victori-
bus leges dederunt (^)." As the Sabbath was peculiarly set
apart for commemorating the creation of the world, and
honouring the Maker of the universe, if the observation of
the Jewish Sabbath spread among the Gentiles, this shews
that the knowledge and worship of the one true God was
propagated among them. Add to all this, that the Jewish
Scriptures having been translated into Greek, the language
then almost universally understood, became very generally
dispersed. It cannot therefore be justly said, that the Gen-
tiles were debarred from all benefit of Revelation, since
besides the remains of antient tradition still preserved
amongst them, and which were originally owing to Divine
Revelation, a considerable part of the Heathen world had op-
portunities, by means of the Jews dispersed among them,
of attaining to the knowledge and worship of the one true
God, and discovering the error and vanity of their idolatry
and polytheism. And that many were by this means brought
over from their idolatries we have good reason to believe;
both from several passages in Josephus, and from the num-
bers of devout Gentiles in many cities of note, when
Christianity was first published: of which we have an ac-
count in the Acts of the Apostles. And if the main body
of the Pagans in every nation, and even their wise men
and philosophers, still continued obstinately to adhere to
the antient popular superstition and idolatry, and instead of
making a proper use of the advantages hereby given them,
either despised the Jews as unworthy of their notice, and
rejected their religion at once without examination and en-
quiry, or hated them for having a religion so opposite to
their own (i), the fault is to be charged upon themselves.

{h) Apud August. De Civ. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 11. p. 124.

(0 Cicero in his oration for L. Flaccus calls the Jewish reli-

Chap. XIX. Advantage to the Heathen Nations, 409

who neglected those means and helps, as they had done
before the discoveries conveyed to them by antient tradi-
tion, and the light held forth to them in the works of Crea-

gion a " barbarous superstition," and represents it as " abhorrent
from the gravity of the Roman name, the splendor of their em-
pire, and the institutions of their ancestors." And yet if that
great man had allowed himself to examine it, he would have
found that it taught nobler notions of the Divinity than even their
most admired philosophers. But the views of human policy, the
pride of their own wisdom, the contempt they had for those
whom they accounted and called Barbarians, and their attach-
ment to the rites and laws of their ancestors, hindered the
greatest and wisest men of Greece and Rome from judging im-
partially of a religion which was so contrary to the established
polytheism and idolatry. Nothing can be more unfair and disin-
genuous than the representations made by some of their cele-
brated historians of the original of the Jewish nation, of their
religion and laws. There are indeed some strictures of truth in
their accounts, but they are mixed with so many falsehoods and
absurdities, as plainly shew how strongly they were prejudiced
against them, and how little care they took to get a right in-
formation concerning them, which, if they had been so disposed^
they might easily have procured. Such are the accounts given
of them by Justin from Trogus Pompeius, by Diodorus Sicu-
lus, and Tacitus. This last mentioned author, who was a man of
admirable parts and sagacity, and in other respects an exact and
faithful writer, tells us the Jews consecrated the image of an
ass in the sanctuary of their temple, and made it the object of
their worship, because, as he pretends, a herd of asses had led
them to a rock where they found large springs of water, when
they were ready to perish for thirst in the wilderness*. What
renders him the less excusable in adopting this silly story is,
that soon after he himself is obliged to own, that " whereas the
Egyptians pay divine honours to animals, and to images made
by art, the Jews acknowledge but one God, to be apprehended

* Tacit. Hist. lib. v. cap. 4.

Vol. L 3 F

410 Corruption of the Heathens chargeable Part I.

tion and Providence. What farther shews the great pro-
priety and usefulness of the peculiar Jewish constitution,
and the Revelation made to the people of Israel, is, that

only hy the mind: they account those prophane who frame
images of the gods out of perishable materials in the form and
likeness of men: and hold that that supreme eternal Being is
neither liable to change, nor shall ever die: and therefore there
are no images in heir cities, much less in their temples.'* —
" Egyptii pleraque aniraalia effigiesque compositas venerantur;
Judaei menie sola unumqiie numen intelligunt: profanos qui
deum imagines, mortalibus materiis, in speciem hominum
effingunt: summum illud et aeternum, neque mutabile, neque
interiturum: igitur nulla simulacra urbibus suis, nedum templis
suDt* *' And accordingly he afterwards observes, that Pompey,
the first of the Romans that subdued the Jews, and who entered
the temple by right of conquest, found no image of the gods
there, but the holy place vacant and emptyt- That great philo-
sopher and historian Plutarch, a man of vast reading, and who
was curious and diligent in his enquiries, yet in what relates to
the Jews betrays a shameful ignorance or the strongest preju-
dices. He charges them, as Tacitus had done, with worshipping
an ass; and is in a doubt whether they did not abstain from
swine's flesh out of a peculiar veneration they had for that ani-
mal. The account he pretends to give of their sacred rites is
perfectly trifling and ridiculous:}:. And yet if he had ple:.sed, he
might easily have procured better information. The Jews were
dispersed in great numbers among the nations. Their sacred
writings, which had been long translated into Greek, were in
many hands. The books of Josephus and Philo, both of them
fine writers, were extant. He indeed lakes upon him to pro-
nounce, that what is said by themselves concerning these things
is fabulous. But it is plain he did not consult the Jewish writings
and records, which would have been the proper and rational way
to get a right information. I think what Origen says to Celsus is

* Tacit. Hist. lib. v. cap. 5. f Ibid cap. 9.

i Plut. Sympos. lib. iv. qujest. 5. Oper. torn. II. p. 67Q. et seq.

Chap. XIX. not on God, but on themselves, 411

not only rays of light were from thence scattered abroad
among the Pagans, which might have been of great advan-
tage if duly improved, but that it had a great tendency to
prepare the world for receiving that most perfect dispensa-
tion which was to succeed it, and which was to be of a
more general extent, and more universally diffused.

It appears from the several considerations which have
been offered, that a great deal was done in the methods o£
Divine Providence, for preventing or reclaiming the na-
tions from the idolatry and pol. theism in which they came
to be generally involved. And the state of religion among
them would have had a quite different appearance, if they
had made that use and improvement of the means that were
put into their hands, which it was really in their power to
have done, and had applied themselves with that care and
diligence which a matter of such vast importance required.
And therefore St. Paul justly pronounces concerning them,
that they " liked not to retain God in their knowledge,"
and that they " were without excuse — ^vajroAayjiT*;," i. e«
unable to make a sufficient apology for themselves, if called
to a strict account at the bar of God. Yet what allowances

extremely just: ** It is proper to ask Celsus," says he, " why
he who mentions with approbation the histories of the Greeks
and Barbarians, and gives credit to their antiquities, should only
doubt of the antiquities of the Jews. If the writers of other na-
tions give a true account of their own affairs, why are the Jewish
prophets the only persons we refuse to believe*?" But that the
true source of Celsus's prejudice against them was their main-
liaining the unity of God in opposition to the common polythe-
ism, may be gathered from what he himself saith of the people
of Israel; that " those goat-herds and shepherds, following Moses
as their leader, being imposed upon by his rustic frauds, believed
there is only one Godf."

* Orig, contra Cels. lib. i, p. 12, 13. t Ibid. p. 17, 18,

412 Remains of Religion preserved Part I.

it may please him in his infinite mercy to make for the cir-
cumstances they were in, and the ignorance, errors, and
prejudices under which they laboured, we cannot take upon
us to determine; but must leave it to him, the most wise
and merciful as well as righteous judge and father of man-
kind, who will certainly do what is fittest and best.

It is proper on this occasion to observe the great good-
ness of God, and the patience and forbearance he exercised
towards a corrupt and idolatrous world. Though they were
so far fallen from the knowledge and worship of him the
only true God, and instead of glorifying him as God, gave
the glory due to him alone to false and fictitious deities, he
did not absolutely abandon them, nor pour forth those judg-
ments upon them which their iniquities had deserved. He
continued to do them good in the methods of his wise and
kind Providence; and so ordered it, that some remains of
religion were still preserved among them. The idea of a
Deity, and a governing invisible power, and of a Provi-
dence that takes cognizance of human actions and affairs,
though mixed with much obscurity, and attended with many
and great errors, was never utterly extinguished. There
still remained some sense of the moral differences of things,
and some feeble apprehensions of a future state of retribu-
tions. These things were helpful to lay some restraints
upon vice and wickedness, to furnish some encouragements
and supports to virtue, to give force to civil laws and
government, and to maintain the face of order in the world.
Such is the force of these principles, that where they are
even in the least degree preserved and suffered to operate,
they can scarce fail to produce some beneficial effects for
the good of society. Whereas absolute atheism and the
want of all religion saps the foundation of all order, tends
to dissolve the strongest bands of human society, and to
open a wide door for universal confusion and licentiousness.
And therefore the reclaiming mankind from the darkness

Chap. XIX. among the Heathens, 413

and corruption into which they were generally fallen, to the
right knowledge, obedience, and adoration of the one true
God, the clearing and confirming the main principles of re-
ligion, which were greatly weakened and obscured, and
enforcing them by a divine authority and power on the
minds and consciences of men, and the recovering men
from the state of guilt and condemnation in which they lay
involved, to a well-grounded hope of pardon and salvation;
this must be acknowledged to be a design worthy of the Di-
vine wisdom and goodness. Such is the design of the Chris-
tian Dispensation, which was introduced into the world at
a time when it was most wanted, and when the need man-
kind stood in of such an extraordinary interposition of
Divine Providence manifestly appeared.

414- The Pagan Religion less corrupted in Part L

CHAPTER XX.

A third general reflection. Idolatry gathered strength among tlie nations, as they
grew in learnirg and politeness. Religion in several resptcts less corrupted in
the ruder and more illiterate than in the politer ages The arts and sciences
miade a very great progress in the Heathen \*orld: jet th y still became more
and more addicted to the most absurd idolatries, as well as to the most abomi-
nable vices; both of which were at the height at the time of our Saviour's ap-
pearance.

Another important reflection which may help to cast
farther light on the present subject is this; that superstition
and idolatry, instead of being corrected and diminished,
rather increased and gathered strength among the Heathen
nations as thty grew in learning and politeness. Any one
that considers the accounts which are given us of the pro-
gress of arts and sciences, how from rude beginnings they
were still advancing to greater perfection, and that as the
nations became more knowing and civilized, these were
continually improving, will be apt to think that so it must
have been with religion too. It is natural to suppose, that
as their knowledge was more extended, and their under-
standings better cultivated, and exercised in the arts of
reasoning, they must have more clearly seen the absurdity
of superstition and idolatry, and have attained to higher
improvements in religion, and in the knov»^ledge and w^or-
ship of the one true God, as well as in other branches of
science. And yet if we consult fact and experience we shall
find, that the religion of the Gentiles in the most antient
times was in several instances more pure and simple, less
incumbered and corrupted with idolatry, than in succeeding
ages, when the arts and sciences had made a considerable
progress. This seems to shew, that the knowledge men had
of God and Religion in the first ages was originally owing

Chap. XX. the rude than in the politer ages. 415

not merely to the efforts of their own reason, which was
then little cultivated and improved, but to a Divine Reve-
lation made to the first of the human race, and from them
communicated to their posterity. It might have been hoped,
that this tradition, which, when duly proposed, is agreeable
to right reason, would have been preserved with great care,
especially when learning and knowledge were improved:
but it soon began to degenerate, and became the more cor-
rupt the farther it was removed from its original. The true
primitive Theism, which was the most antient religion of
mankind, became soon adulterated with mixtures of poly-
theism, still preserving for the most part, amidst all their
corruptions, some obscure idea of one Supreme Divinity,
till at length it was almost lost and confounded amidst a
multiplicity of idol deities.

It has been already shewn, that the most antient idolatry
and deviation from the worship of the one true God, was
the worship of heaven and the heavenly bodies. But the
first idolaters, as Eusebius observes, did not erect statues
or images to them, but contented themselves with fixing
their eyes upon the visible heavens and worshipping what
they beheld there (/^). This is agreeable to the representa-
tion made of it in the antient book of Job, where it is inti-
mated that those who then worshipped the heavenly bodies,
were wont to do it by lifting up their eyes towards hrraven,
and bowing and kissing thtir hands to them when they
appeared in their splendor. That holy man, to clear hirn5;elf
from all suspicion of idolatry, which was then making a
progress in those parts, in his admirable apology expresses
himself thus: " If I beheld the sun when it sbined, or the
moon walking in brightness — and my heart hath been se-
cretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand; this also

(k) Praipar, Evangel, lib. i. cap. 6. p. 17. Paris 1628.

416 The Pagan Religion less corrupted Part I.

were an iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I should
have denied the God that is above." Job xxxi. 26, 27, 28.
And Moses seems to intimate the same thing, Deut. iv. 19.
" Lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou
seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host
of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship and serve them."
And he distinguisheth this from the idolatry of image-wor-
ship, which he had forbidden just before.

It is another observation of Eusebius concerning the
idolaters of the most antient times, that they made no men-
tion of that multitude of hero deities which were afterwards
worshipped both among the Greeks and Barbarians. There
was among them no theogonia, or fabulous account of the
generation of the gods. The numerous rabble of gods and
heroes, with the monstrous fictions relating to them, were
of later date, and had their rise among the Egyptians and
Phoenicians, and from them were propagated to the
Greeks (/). It was among the Chaldeans, Phoenicians,
and Egyptians, that -image- worship, as well as that of
hero gods or deified men, seems to have first obtained.
The first approach towards image-worship among the na-
tions was, as some learned men probably suppose, their
erecting stones and pillars in honour of their deities. This
seems to have been an abuse of a custom that was originally
used by the worshippers of the true God, who were wont
to erect large stones as monuments in places where in those
antient times there had been remarkable divine appearances:
and there they erected altars and offered sacrifices. Of this
we have a memorable instance in that good man Jacob.
Having at the end of the first day's journey towards Me-
sopotamia had a divine vision, in which God was pleased

(/) Euseb. ubi supra, cap. 9. p. 29, 30.

Chap. XX. in the rude than in the politer ages* 41/

to appear to him in a visible glory attended with his holy-
angels, and repeated those promises to him which he had
before made to his pious progenitors Abraham and Isaac,
he took a large stone, and set it up for a pillar, and poured
oil upon the top of it, and thereby consecrated it to a reli-
gious use; and this probably in conformity to antient cus-
tom. And he called the name of that place Bethel, " the
house of God." Gen. xxviii. 18, 19. At the same time he
made a solemn vow, that if he returned in safety to his
father's house, this stone which he had set up for a pillar
should be God's house, that is, the place where he would
erect an altar to the only true God, and offer sacrifices to
him. And this accordingly he afterwards did by the divine
command: but he first took care to purify his family, and
put away the strange gods which were among them; some
of his numerous family having privily introduced idolatrous
usages. Gen. xxxv. 1 — 4. Some learned persons, particu-
larly the famous Joseph Scaliger anvJ Bochart, have ingeni-
ously conjectured, that from the stone erected into a pillar
by Jacob, and his calling the place Bethel, came the
word '^xiTvXiec used among the Heathens, and especially the
Phoenicians, to signify those rude stones which were conse-
crated as symbols of the Divinity, and in vvhich they thought
some divine power resided (m). These were worshipped
by them, as statues and images were afterwards. And in
this as well as other instances, the rites and usages which
were originally designed in honour of the one true God,
were in process of time misapplied to the worship of idol
deities. In the Chron. Alexand. p. 89. it is said, that the
Assyrians were the first who set up a pillar to the planet

(m) Scaliger Animadvers. in Euseb. p. 198. Bochart. Canaan^
lib. ii. cap. 2.

Vol. I. 3 G

418 The Pagan Religion less corrupted Part I,

Mars, and worshipped it as a god {n), Herodian mentions
a pillar or large stone erected in honour of the sun, and
called Eligabalus. And Pausanias in Arcadicis observes,
that in the most antient times, universally among the
Greeks, instead of images rude stones had divine honours
rendered. " avti iyotXf^urm ux<if ^gy*/ a/S<j< rifiet^,^^ These were
succeeded by statues and images, which at first had little
workmanship bestowed upon them, but as the arts began to
flourish, and the worship of hero gods and goddesses be-
came more in fashion, they were wrought up with great art
and beauty. It was because pillars were so much abused to
idolatrous purposes, that the religious use of them, as well
as of statues and images, was expressly forbidden in the
law of Moses. Levit. xxvi. 1. Deut. xvi. 22. The word in
the Hebrew in both these places, is Matzebah, rendered by
our translators " a standing image," but by the Septuagint
♦d'ajj, " a pillar," as it is also in the margin of our Bibles;
and thus it is understood by the Jews, as Mr. Selden has
shewn (o).

Lucian, de Dea Syria, says, that the Assyrians derived
the temples and statues of the gods from the Egyptians;
but that antiently the temples of the Egyptians were with-
out statues (/?). It is certain however that the worship
of images in the form of men, and other animals, had ob-
tained in Egypt and the neighbouring countries (5^), before

(n) Shuckford's Connect, of Sacred and Profane History, vol.
I. p. 328, 329.

(0) De Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. ii. cap. 6.

(fi) Lucian. Opera, torn. ii. p. 657. Amstel.

(q) According to Diodorus Siculus, the Egyptians began with
the worship of the sun and moon, and thence proceeded to wor-
ship the elements, the earth, water, fire, and air; and at last
came to worship animals and reptiles. Thus idolatry still grew
and increased amongst them. And the abuse of the hieroglyphi-
cal characters and sacred symbols, which were in early use hi

Chap. XX, in the rude than in the politer ages, 419

the days of Moses, as appears from the prohibition of them
in the second commandment, and which is more particular-
ly expressed, Deut. iv. 16, 17, 18. But still there were
several nations, that did not as yet, nor for a long time
after, worship images. Such were the antient Persians,
for which we have the testimonies of Herodotus, Xenophon,
and Strabo. Clemens Alexandrinus informs us, that the
first image which was set up among them was a statue of
Venus, by Artaxerxes, who, as Dr. Shuckford probably
conjectures, was Ochus, in the latter times of the Persian
empire (r). Bardesanes, as quoted by Eusebius, says, that
the Seres, a famous nation in India, had a law among them
forbidding all worship of images. The same author ob-
serves concerning the Indian Brachmans, that according to
a tradition derived from their ancestors, they abstained
from image-worship (s^. At what time images were first
introduced among the Greeks we have no certain account.
But the use of them probably came into Greece from
Egypt. The most antient Greeks had no temples, but wor-
shipped in the open air. It is said that Cecrops, who came
from Egypt, first taught them to erect temples, and brought
in the worship of hero-gods and images: and in this he was
followed by others of their antient kings and legislators;
and the number of their gods and goddesses, as well as the
rites of their worship, were continually increasing, and re-
ceived constant additions from the fables of their poets and
mythologists. As to Italy, the best writers of their anti-
quities agree, that the religion of the inhabitants in the most

Egypt, contributed not a little to it. Thus under pretence of su-
perior wisdom, the purity and simplicity of the antient religion
became more and more corrupted.

(r) Shuckford ubi supra, p. 346.

(«) Euseb. Praep. Evangel, lib. vi. cap. 10. p. 274, 275.

420 Idolatry continually increased Part L

antient times was different in several respects from that
which prevailed in Greece in the latter ages. And it is
pariicularly observed by Varro concerning the antient Ro-
mans, that they worshipped the gods without an image
for more than one hundred and seventy years. And
he adds, that if this had still continued, the gods would
have been worshipped more purely. '^ Quod si adhuc man-
sisset, castius dii observentur;" of which he mentions the
Jews as an example. Yea, he sticks not to declare, that
" they who first instituted images of the gods for the peo-
ple, both took away from the cities the reverence of the
gods, and added to the popular error." " Qui primi simu-
lacra deorum populis posuerunt, eos civitatibus suis et ma-
lum demsisse, et errorem addidisse (0»" To the same pur-
pose Plutarch, in his life of Numa, observes, that " he for-
bad the Romans to represent God under the form of man
or beast; nor was there any graven or painted image admit-
ted among them formerly. But for the space of the first
one hundred and sixty years they built temples, but made
no statue or image, as thinking it an impiety to liken the
most excellent things to those that are mean and base; it
being not possible to apprehend or approach God, \(pefx\it,i(r6eii
5-e5, but by the understanding (w)." But afterwards images
were multiplied among them, as well as among the Greeks,
and grew more and more in use in those ages when learn-
ing and the arts flourished. Their wise men and philoso-
phers pleaded for images as necessary helps to human infir-
mity; and the people carried it so far as lo thmk that there

(;) Apud Augustin. de Civ. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 31. p. 87.

(w) Macrobiijs speaking of him whom he calls the highest
God, affirms that antiquity formed no image of him. " Nul-
lum ejus simulacrum sinxit antiquitas." In Somn. Scip. lib. i.
cap. 2.

Chap. XX. among the Nations, 421

could be no religion without images. Hence they looked
upon those nations which had no images as having no reli-
gion at all (x). And this was one of their principal ohj 'ac-
tions against the primitive Christians, who were all zealous
enemit s to image worship, that they had no altars or images:
*' nullas aras, nulla nota simulacra." Thus the learned and
polite nations fell short of some of the people whom they
called barbarous, who in this and some other instances ad-
hered more closely to the tradition of the first ages, and
were strangers to the refinements of human learning and
philosophy.

I had occasion to take notice before of the praises be-
stowed by Dionysius Halicarnasseus upon the religion of
the first Romans. It appears from his account that m the
most antient times of the Roman state, when the people
were esteemed rude and illiterate, their religion had more
of simplicity, and less absurdity in it, than afterwards, when
they had commerce with the learned Greeks, and philoso-
phy and the sciences had made a great progress among
them. Hence the satirist, comparing the antient with the
latter times, observes, that they had not then such a crowd
of gods as they worshipped afterwards.

** Mec turba deorum
Talis ut est hodie, contentaque sidera paucis
Numinibus."

Juven. Sat. xiii. ver. 46, 47.

They incorporated more of the poetic fabulous theology
into the civil or public religion than they had formerly

{x) Lactantius, speaking of the fondness of the Heaihen? for
images, especially those who were adornerJ with gold and jewels,
observes, " nee uUam religionem putant, ubi ilia non fulsennt,"
lib. ii. cap. 6.

422 Idolatry continually increased Part I.

done. It appears from the writings of the learned Varro,
who flourished in the latter times of the Roman republic,
not long before the coming of our Saviour, that in his days
their deities and sacred ceremonies were multiplied to an
amazing degree. So far is it from being true that they grew
in the knowledge of religion, and in the pure worship of
the true God, as they grew in literature, that on the con-
trary they were still more deeply immersed in idolatry and
polytheism. Rome became at length the receptacle of
all kinds of idolatry, even of the Egyptian rites. Thus
Lucan,

" Nos in templa tuam Romana recepimus Isin
Semideosque canes."

Hence Tertullian upbraids the Romans, that notwithstand-
ing the high regard they professed to have for their ances-
tors, they had fallen off from those of their institutions,
which had been rightly ordered. They restored the myste-
ries of Bacchus, which by a decree of the senate had been
exterminated out of Rome and all Italy. The Egyptian
deities, particularly Serapis, Isis, Harpocrates, Cynocepha-
lus or Anubis, which had been expelled the Capitol by the
consuls, and their altars overturned, were again admitted,
and the highest honours paid them (z/).

Thus it appears that the illiterate ages, by keeping more
closely to the traditions derived to them from the most an-
tient times, were free from some of those corruptions which
were introduced in the politer ages. Idolatry and polythe-
ism continued to gather strength in the midst of learning
and philosophy. Not only the poets and priests, but the le-
gislators and civil magistrates, many of whom were ac-
counted wise men and philosophers, had a great hand in

(y) Tertul. Apol. cap. 6. Opera, p. 7. B. C. Paris 1672.

Chap. XX. among- the Nations. 425

this. Aristotle, in a passage above quoted from him, after
having observed, that it had been delivered down from
those of the most antient times, both that the stars are
gods, and that the Divinity containeth whole or uni-
versal nature, adds, that all the other things were fabu-
lously introduced for the persuasion of the multitude, and
for procuring obedience to the laws, and promoting the
public utility: such as the representing the gods to be of
human form, or like to some other animals, with other
things of that nature, and which are consequent upon
these (z).

(z) Metaphys. lib. xiv. cap. 8. Oper. torn. ii. p. 1003. Paris
1629.

424 No ordinary Means sufficient to recover the Part I*

CHAPTER XXI.

A fourth general reflection. Human wisdom and philosophy, without a higher
assistance, insufficient for recovering mankind from their idolatry and poly*
theism, and for leading them into the right know ledge of God and religion, and
the worship due to him. No remedy was to be expected in an ordinary way,
either from the philosophers or from the priests, or from the civil magistrates-
Nothing less than an extraordinary Revelation from God could, as things were
circumstanced, prove an effectual remedy. The wisest men in the Heathen
world were sensible of their own darkness and ignorance in the things of God,
and of their need of Divine Revelation.

j[ HE several considerations which have been ofFered
make it sufficiently evident, how little was to be expected
from human learning and philosophy, for instructing man-
kind in the right knowledge and worship of the only true
God, and for recovering thtm from the gross idolatry and
polytheism in which they were generally involved. What
the apostle hath observed now appears to be undeniably
true by fact and experience, " The world by wisdom knew
not God." 1 Cor. i. 21. If there had been no other remedy,
we must have continued under the Pagan idolatry and po-
lytheism unto this day.

It is an easy thing to speak in high terms of what the
light of nature and reason can lead men to, now that it has
been so greatly refined and assisted by the light communi-
cated from the Christian Revelation. Men that have been
educated under the Gospel, and who have access to the
discoveries there made, may pursue and improve those dis-
coveries, and then securely boast of what mighty things
they can do by the strength of their own reason and pene-
tration. But the proper way to know the true force of na-
tural reason, and what may be expected from it when left
to itself in the present state of mankind, is to consider

Chap. XXI. nations from their Idolatry and Polytheism, 4^25

what was done in matters of religion under the mere
guidance of human reason, in those nations and ages in
which it was diligently cultivated, and when polite litera-
ture and the liberal arts were in their highest elevation. It
would argue great arrogance in us to suppose, that we
have a more comprehensive reach of thought, greater pene-
tration and force of reason, than those sublime geniuses,
which have been the admiration of all succeeding agese
Since therefore they with all their learning and vast abili-
ties were at so great a loss in what related to the know-
ledge and worship of the only true God, in opposition to
all idolatry and polytheism, there is just ground to suppose,
that if we had been left merely to ourselves, and had not
the benefit of Divine Revelation, we should have been still
wandering in the mazes of error, even in matters of the
highest consequence.

The age when Christianity first made its appearance in
the world, was far from being an age of ignorance, if we
speak of human literature, and the improvements of the
arts and sciences. But the nations that were otherwise
learned and polite were sunk into the most deplorable igno-
rance, darkness, and corruption in matters of religion.
Now the question arises, what was proper to be done to
recover them out of this their wretched state, to the right
knowledge of God and of their duty? In speculation it
might be thought that human learning and philosophy
might alone be an able and sufficient guide: there were
among the Heathens men of wonderful abilities^ who spent
their lives in studious enquiries, and made it their business
to search into the reason and nature of things; and many
of them travelled to the most distant countries, and to the
places then most celebrated for science, in quest of know-
ledge: and it might probably be supposed, that such per-
sons by their instructions might reform the world, and re-
claim them from their gross superstitions and idolatries,

Vol. I. 3 H

426 No ordinary Means siifficient to recover the Part I.

and lead them into just notions of God and Religion. But
was this the case in fact? Did they make any stand against
the prevailing corruptions? Or work any reformation in
the popular system of polytheism? Far from it. If any of
them had just and good notions, they wanted a divine au-
thority to enforce their dictates. Their dogmas passed only
for fine speculations, or the opinions of this or that philo-
sopher or sect of philosophers, with which the people had
little concern, and which therefore had but small influence.
Accordingly we find in fact, that the popular idolatry and
polytheism, and the many absurd and abominable rites of
the Heathen superstition, still kept their ground. Nor did
the philosophers ever convert so much as a single village
from idolatry. On the contrary, they patronized it by their
maxims, and countenanced it by their practice. It is evident
then that whatever high opinion some have entertained of
the Heathen learning and philosophy, it was unable to re-
form a corrupt and idolatrous world. It had been tried for
many ages. " Philosophy," as Mr. Locke observes, "seems
to have spent its strength, and done its utmost;" and yet
after all was found ineffectual. This furnisheth a plain and
convincing proof that human reason, if left merely to itself
without an higher assistance, is not a safe and sufficient
guide in divine matters, and holds out an obscure and un-
certain light: and that when men come to treat of these
things in the fulness of their pride and self-sufficiency, and
with a high conceit of their own wisdom, they for the
most part either throw off all religion, or strangely corrupt
or pervert its most important doctrines and principles.
Reason may be, and has been, of great use, when under
the conduct of Divine Revelation, and making use of the
light which that affords: but when trusting to its own force
it has affected an independency, and endeavoured to strike
out new paths, it has often made wild work in religion, and
plunged men into atheism, scepticism, and infidelity on

Chap. XXI. natio7is from their Idolatry and Polytheism. 427

the one hand, or into idolatry, superstition, and number*
less varieties of error on the other.

And if it was a vain thing to look for a reformation in
religion from the philosophers, from whom else could it be
expected? Surely not from the priests, who were the great
promoters of polytheism, and all the absurd rites of the
Pagan superstition. Could it be thought, that they would
instruct the people to abandon that idolatry by which they
maintained their own reputation and interest? Or, would
the lawgivers and politicians, and great men of the state
attempt it? If this was the design of the mysteries they
instituted, it is plain they were of little efficacy to draw the
people off from the common polytheism, nor indeed, as
they were managed, could be expected to do so. The pub-
lic laws in every city and country established idolatrv.
Their most celebrated legislators interwove the worship of
idol deities into their civil constitutions, and their ablest
political writers, who wrote about the best forms of govern-
ment, confirmed it. It might perhaps be hoped, that when
a philsosopher came to have the reins of government in
his own hands, which was what Plato proposed as the best
expedient for regulating the Commonwealth, and admi-
nistering it in the fittest manner, these great abuses would
be rectified, and a better scheme of religion established.
Such was Marcus Antoninus, a great emperor, and an ex-
cellent philosopher. But did he introduce a better form of
religion, or a purer worship of the Deity? On the contrary,
he himself observed the accustomed rites; he adored the
popular deities, and even seemed zealous for the established
superstition. And what other method could human wisdom
devise, to reform and recover mankind from their idolatry
and polytheism to the right knowledge and worship of
God, but the doctrines of their wise men and philoso-
phers, the instructions of their priests, and the authority of
the legislators and civil powers? And all these were found

428 No ordmary 3Ieans sufficient to recover the Part I.

in fact and experience to be insufficient. Must the people
therefore be left wholly to themselves, and their own na-
tural notions? But these were corrupted to an astonishing
degree; so that Cicero scrupled not to say, that the light of
nature no where appeared {a). And as to the broken re-
mains of antient tradition concerning a Deity, a Providence,
and the world to come, which were originally owing to Di-
vine Revelation, they became at length in a great measure '
defaced and overwhelmed with innumerable errors and su-
perstitions. And indeed if men of the finest genius were at
a loss, what could be expected from the vulgar? It is evi-
dent, that taking mankind as they are, there was little
ground to hope that they would ever, if left to themselves,
have been able to recover from their prejudices, and lay
aside those corruptions, those superstitions and idolatries,
which had been for many ages received among their an-
cestors, and established by the laws, recommended and
practised by their wise men and philosophers, and which
were at the same time calculated to gratify their sensual
appetites and inclinations. Notwithstanding all the aids of
learning, the world still grew more and more corrupted
both in principle and practice, more and more addicted to
the most absurd superstitions and most abominable vices.
And never were they both arrived to a greater height than
at the time when our Saviour appeared (^).

(a) Tuscul. Disput. lib. iii. cap. 1.

(jb) The learned Dr. Sykes, whom I have had frequent occa-
sion to quote, and who has shewn a high esteem for the powers
of reason, and a strong prejudice in favour of the Pagan philo-
sophers, plainly asserts not only the usefulness but the neces-
sity of Divine Revelation, as things were circumstanced in the
Heathen world. He says, that " by the addition of very much
absurdity and folly, by the gross idolatries they had every where
established, by the abundance of fables they had mixed with

Chap.XXI. nations from their Idolatry and Polytheism. 429

After Christianity had made some progress, endeavours
were used to revive the credit of the Pagan philosophy, and
to raise it to a higher degree of reputation than before. Those
they called Eclectics, professed to select that which was
best out of every sect of philosophers, and to form their
principles into one body. The Alexandrian school became
famous, and it must be owned that in several things they
exceeded those that had gone before them, and were more
explicit in their declarations of the unity of God, and ad-
vanced noble speculations concerning the divine attributes
and Providence: but there is great reason to think, that for
this they were very much indebted to the light received
from the Christian revelation, though they were too proud
to own it.

Eusebius acquaints us that there had been from the first
age of the Christian church a school of sacred learning
erected among the Christians at Alexandria, which conti-
nued to his time, and had been furnished with men eminent
for their eloquence, and knowledge in divine things. He

truth; by the apparent falsehoods they had embraced; and through
the great danger that every good man run, who should venture
to shew them the pure truth; there was a necessity of a reforma-
tion, and of calling men back to the true rule of action. How to
remove the loads of rubbish, which by degrees had been thrown
upon the beauteous fabric of trath, was more than the wisest
mortal could tell, or dare to undertake. Every crevice was stop-
ped by which light might enter: and this made even Socrates
declare, that he thought it best to be quiet, and expect, till
somebody should come, and by a divine teaching, remove the
mist from before men's eyes." Plat. Alcib. H. et Phaed. See
Sykes's Connection and Principles of Natural and Revealed Re-
ligion, p. 431, 432. And he had said before that " error must/or
ever have prevailed, had not a method been found out to propa-
gate truth against all the powers and authority and influence of
the men of this world." Ibid. p. 383.

430 No ordinartf Means sufficient to recover the Part I.

particularly mentions the celebrated Pantsenus, as having
presided in that school at the latter end of the second cen-
tury, and who had been bred up in the principles of the
Stoic philosophy (c). Jerome gives the same account, and
that he was succeeded by Clemens Alexandrinus, who was
also a man of great learning, and extremely well versed in
the Pagan philosophy (^). That eminent Alexandrian phi-
losopher Ammonius Saccas, so highly extolled by Porphyry
and Hierocles, whom the latter Platonists and Pythagoreans
regarded as their father, and from whom they derived
what they called the sacred succession, lived and died a
Christian, as both Eusebius and Jerome affirm, and this
hath been the general opinion of the learned. Or, if wc
should suppose with Fabricius that Ammonius Saccas was
a different person from the Ammonius referred to by Euse-
bius and Jerome, yet still, by Porphyry's own acknowledg-
ment, he had been educated a Christian under Christian
parents. And though Porphyry pretends, that when he came
to years of understanding, and " had acquired a taste of
philosophy, he betook himself to a life agreeable to the
laws," i. e. embraced Heathenism, yet it seems reasonable
to believe, that as he was acquainted with Christianity, he
scattered many seeds of sacred truth in his philosophical
lectures, originally derived from the Jewish and Christian
Revelations. He had both Christians and Pagans in his
school; among others the admired philosopher Plotinus,
and the famous Origen, who. Porphyry tells us, was one of
his hearers, and made a great proficiency in the knowledge
of philosophy under this master. The Pagan philosophers
that proceeded out of this school blended the notions re-
ceived from the holy Scriptures with the Pagan theology

Chap. XXI. nations from their Idolatry and Polytheism, 431

and philosophy, and thereby rose in several instances to
higher flights than their predecessors; and yet to shew how-
little was to be expected from the Heathen philosophy in
its utmost refinement, they made no attempts to recover the
people from their idolatry and polytheism, but rather used
all their credit and efforts to uphold declining Paganism,
and devised the most plausible colours to defend it. With
this view they endeavoured to accommodate their philoso-
phical schemes to the Pagan religion, and to support the
one by the other. He that would form a just idea of the
new philosophy which they wanted to introduce, roav con-
sult the learned Fabricius in his Prolegomena to the life of
Proclus by Marinus.

I shall conclude what relates to the Pagan philosophers,
with observing, that though undoubtedly they had an high
opinion of their own wisdom, yet the most eminent of them
were sensible of the darkness, the ignorance, and uncertainty
they were under, especially in divine matters, and the great
need mankind stood in of a divine revelation and instruc-
tion, to lead them into a right knowledge of God and reli-
gion (e). Something was offered concerning this before, p.
233, and p. 244. to which I refer the reader. I shall here

(e) See the learned Dr. Clarke's Discourse on Natural and
Revealed Religion under the seventh proposition, p. 306. et seq.
edit. 7th. Lord Bolingbroke in his animadversions on this part
of Dr. Clarke's book, owns that Plato insinuates in many places
the want or necessity of a Divine Revelation: but he will not
allow that the opinion of Socrates, Plato and other philosophers,
is any proof that the want was real. His exceptions to this have
been elsewhere considered. View of the Deistical Writers, vol.
II. p. 63. edit. 3d. At present I shall only observe, that by his
own acknowledgment those great philosophers were themselves
sensible of the need of Divine Revelation in the present state of
mankind. Bolingbroke's Works, vol. V. p. 214, 215,216. 4to.

432 The wisest Heathens sensible of Part I*

subjoin some other passages to the same purpose. Plato at
the latter end of his sixth Republic observes, that " the same
respect which the sun in the visible world has to sight, and
the things which are seen, the very same has the t« ^y«^o»,
that which is good [i. e. God] in the intellectual world to
inteJlect and things which are understood: that as the eyes,
when looking at things in the night, are almost blind, and as_
if they had no sight at all; but when turned to objects which
the sun shines upon see them clearly, so it is with regard
to the mind. When it adheres to the ri ov, the Being which
really is or exists, it understands and knows, and appears to
have intellect: but when it turns to that which is mixed
with darkness, and which is generated and corruptible, it is
carried about with various opinions, and seems as if it had
no understanding." Plat. Opera, p. 478, 479. Ficin.

In the dialogue called Theages, Plato introduces Socra-
tes instructing a young man, Theages, whom his father
brought to him to be taught wisdom: and in the conclusion
of that dialogue he intimates to him, that if his attempt to
learn wisdom were pleasing to God, he would make a great
proficiency in it in a short time; if otherwise, not: and that
he should therefore apply to him by prayers and sacrifices.
Socrates seems there to have had the Delphian Apollo par-
ticularly in view, whom he elsewhere recommends: it ap-
pears however, from what he here says, how sensible he
was of the need men stood in of a divine assistance and
instruction in order to the obtaining true wisdom. The
same thing appears from that noted passage in Plato's se-
cond Alcibiad, which is quoted at large by the learned Dr.
Clarke (y). The purport of it is this: Socrates meets Alci-
biades going to the temple to pray, and' takes that occasion

(/) Ubi supra, p. 307.

Chap, XXI. their Need of a Divine Revelation, 433

to convince him, that he knew not what to pray for in a
right manner: and thit it was not safe for him to pray in the
temple, till God should dispel the darkness of his mind, so
that he might be in a capacity of discerning between good
and evil. And when Alcibiades upon this said^ I think I
must defer my sacrifices to that time, Socrates answers,
You have reason; it is more safe to do so, than to run so
great a hazard* Socrates did not question the propriety or
necessity of worshipping the Deity, as he shews on several
occasions; but he thought that a divine instruction and
assistance was necessary to enable men to perform it in a
proper manner (^). And therefore there is reason to con-
clude, that he would have accounted a well-attested Reve-
lation, in which God should declare his will concerning the
worship to be rendered to him, an inestimable blessing*
That great philosopher Plutarch btgins his tract De Isid..e€
Osirid. with saying, that " it becomes all persons that have
any understanding xo ask all good things of the gods: but
that especially we should pray to obtain from them the
knowledge of the gods, as far as men are capable of attain-
.jing to it: since neither man can receive, nor God bestow,
any thing greater and more venerable than truth.*' Where,
allowing for the polytheistical manner of expression, he
plainly shews the senSe he had both of the importance of the
knowledge of divine things, and that this knowledge must
come to us from God. lamblichus, in his life of P) thagoras,

{g) I shall here quote a passage from a very inp:enious writer,
and who is no '-.ay inclined to supersution, concerning the ne-
cessity of revelation for instructing men how to worship God in
a right manner. " II faut necessairement que Dieu ait ordonne
un culte a rhomme. — Quel chaos affreux ne s'ensuivroit il pas,
si chacun avoit une pensee diflferente sur le culte, qu'on doit a la
divinite! L*esprit de Thomme sujet a s*egarer reiomberoit
bientot dans les erreurs de I'idolatrie." Lettres Juives,,lettre 33.

VOJL. I. 3 I

434 Th^ wisest Heathens sensible of^ Sec. Part I*

speaking of the principles of divine worship, saith, " It is
manifest that those things are to be done which are pleas-
ing lo God: bat what they are it is not easy to know, except
a man were taught them by God himself, or by some per-
son^ who had received them from God, or obtained the
knowledge of them by some divine means (A)." Indeed all
the latter Platonists and- Pythagoreans, Porphyry, lambli-
chus, Hierocles, Proclus, &c. though enemies to Christian-
ity, owned the necessity of divine illumination, or a revela-
tion from God, to lead men into the knowledge of divine
truth, and an acceptable way of worshipping the Deity.
But they did not make a right use of this principle. Instead
of embracing the Revelation which God had really given,
and which was confirmed by the most illustrious divine
attestations, they sought to be initiated into the mysteries
of the gods in several parts of the world, and applied them-
selves to what they called Theurgy, which had in it a mix-
ture of magical ceremonies, and by which they proposed to
obtain an intimate intercourse and communication with the
gods. But in a little time the vanity of their pretensions
became manifest to all, and the world heard of them no
more.

(A) Iambi, in Vit. Pythag. cap. 28.

435

CHAPTER XXII.

The fifth aTid last general reflection. The Christian Revelation suited to the ne-
cessities of mankind The glorious change it wrought in th.- face of things, and
in the strtte of religion in the v orld; yet accomplished by the seemingly meanest
instruments, in opposition to the greatest difficultifs. It was given in the fittest
season, and attended with the most convincing evidences of a divine original.
How thankful should we be for the salutary light it brings, and how careful
to improve it! What an advantage it is to have the Holy Scriptures in our
hands, and the necessity there is of keeping close to the sacred rule there set
before us, in order to the preserving the Christian Religion in its purity and
simplicity.

i HE state of religion in the Pagan world being in that
deplorable condition which hath been described, and it hav-
ing appeared from experience, after a long trial, that human
wisdom and reason, if left to itself, was insufficient to re-
cover and reform mankind, it pleased God in his great
goodness to grant a Revelation from heaven, which was
designed to be published to the Heathen nations, and con-
firmed by the most convincing evidences of a divine au-
thority. It was by a Revelation from God that religion in
its principal fundamental articles was at first communicated
to the human race; and when they had almost universally
fallen from it, there w^as need of a new Divine Revelation,
all other methods having been found ineffectual. It is true,
that the Revelation contained in the writings of Moses and
the Prophets, was excellently fitted to set those to whom
it was made known right, in what related to the knowledge
and adoration of the one living and true God, the great
Creator and Governor of the universe, in opposition to all
idolatry and polytheism: and it has been shewn that in this
respect it was of great advantage not only to the Jews, but
to many of the Gentiles among whom they were dispersed,
and who thereby had an opportunity given them of being

436 Christianity the last Part I.

convinced of the impiety and absurdity of the common
idolatry. But then it must be considered that the Jewish
Revelation was immediately promulgated to one particular
nation, and fitted in a special manner for their use; and
that nation was by many peculiar rites and usages kept
distinct from all others. This, though necessary at that time
and in that state of things, for valuable purposes (/), yet
contributed to render them unpopular, and to create a pre-
judice against them in other nations. To which it may be
added, that there were some things of importance for men
to know, the full discovery of which was by the Divine
Wisdom reserved for a subsequent Revelation, which in
its original frame and intention was designed for universal
use, and to be published to all nations. And indeed the
whole Jewish economy was so contrived as to prepare the
way for that more perfect dispensation which was to succeed
it. Its rites and ordinances were not only accommodated to
the time then present, and to that state of the church, but
some of them were originally intended to be presignifica-
tive of good things to come, which were to be accomplish-
ed in the fittest season. There had been all a'ong a tradi-
tion preserved among the pc ople of Israel, derived to them
from the earliest ages, concerning a glorious person, whose

(i) Without those peculiar distinctive rites, the Jews would
probably have been confounded with other nations, and involved
in the common idolatry to which for a long time they were very
prone. But when they were fully established in the worship of
the one true God in opposition to all idolatry, and the appointed
time was come for introducing that last and most perfect dispen-
sation of religion, to which the Jewish economy was designed to
be preparatory, those distinctive rites, which were as a partition
wall between Jews and Gentiles, were to be set aside, that they
might all be one in Christ Jesus.

Chap. XXII. and most perfect Revelation. 437

coming was to be of universal benefit, and in whom all the
familit s of the earth were to be blessed. This tradition ran
through their sacred writings, and was the subject of many-
express predictions. Not only was it declared, that he was
to proceed oat of their nation, but the particular tribe,
and even the house and family from which he was to spring,
the place of his nativity, and the time when he was to make
his appearance in the world, were distinctly pointed out.
He was also described by many remarkable characters,
some of them seemingly inconsistent with each other, which
yet in him were all punctually fulfilled. It was clearly and
expressly foretold, that through him the Heathen nations
should be converted from their idolatry and polytheism,
and brought to the acknowledgment and adoration of the
one true God; that the Gentiles should receive his law;
that in him should they put their trust, and that the idols
should be abolished. The predictions concernmg him were
delivered by diffetent persons, at different times, and in di-
vers manners, through a long succession of ages. Things
being thus prepared, at the time which had been marked
out by those prophecies, a Divine Person appeared, in
whom all these characters were wonderfully united, and
which never met together in any other. This yielded a
peculiar kind of attestation to him, never equalled in any
other case. Besides which, his Divine Mission was de-
monstrated by a series of astonishing miracles, which he
performed, and enabled his disciples to perform in his
name; as also by his resurrection from the dead and ascen-
sion into heaven, and by the unparalleled tffusion of the Holy
Ghost in his extraordinary gifts and powers upon his dis-
ciples, and those that believed on him, as he himself had
promised and foretold. This was the glorious and admir-
able Person, by whom it pleased God to make the most
perfect Revelation of his will to mankind. It could not
possibly be sent by a more illustrious messenger, or whose

438 Christianity the last Part I,

Divine Mission was attested and confirmed by more con-
vincing evidence. And the Revelation he brought from
heaven was such in every respect as the state of the world
required. He exhibited the most pure and perfect rule of
moral duty in all its just extent, which was then much
wanted, and which he enforced by the most powerful sanc-
tions, and by a divine authority, at the same time giving
the most perfect example of universal holiness and good-
ness in his own sacred life and practice. He also made the
fullest discoveries of the general judgment, and of the im-
portant retributions of a future state, the notions of which
were greatly obscured and defaced through the corruption
of mankind, and the false reasonings of men pretending to
wisdom and philosophy. And whereas the whole world was
become guilty before God, and obnoxious to his just wrath
on the account of their apostacy from him, and their many
aggravated transgressions, he came in the name of God to
reveal the counsels of his wisdom and love for reconciling
sinners to himself. He gave the fullest assurance of the re-
mission of all their sins to the truly penitent, and that God
"would in his rich grace and mercy, through the Redeemer
whom he had appointed, crown their sincere though imper-
fect obedience with a blessed resurrection and eternal life.
And that this grace of God might not be abused, the
most awful punishments were at the same time denounced
against those that should obstinately persist in a course of
presumptuous sin and disobedience. These were things of
the highest importance to mankind, and proper matter for
a Divine Revelation.. But that which my present subject
leads me especially to consider is, that the Christian Re-
velation was admirably fitted to recover the nations from
that ignorance of God, that idolatry and polytheism in
which they were so generally involved, to the right know-
ledge and pure adoration of the only true God, the great
Creator and Governor of the world. The clearest disco-

Chap. XXII, and most perfect Revelation. 439

veries are there made of his infinite majesty and incom*
parable perfections, of his having created this vast universe
by the word of his power, of his governing Providence
as extending to all events, and especially of his moral ex-
cellencies and attributes, his holiness, goodness, justice,
and truth. These discoveries are of such a nature as have
a manifest tendency to lead men to form the most just and
worthy notions of God, and to inspire them with holy
affections and dispositions towards him, a superlative love,
a pious and profound fear and reverence, and unreserved
submission to his authority, and resignation to his will, and
an ingenuous trust and affiance in him.

To make us farther sensible of the advantages which
the Gospel-Revelation brought to mankind, let us consi-
der that the Heathens are represented in Scripture as
having been under the power of Satan. Notwithstanding
the discoveries made to them both by antient traditions,
originally derived from Divine Revelation, and by the
works of Creation and Providence, they had revolted from
the knowledge and worship of the one living and true
God, and by this their apostacy from God had in effect put
themselves under the power of that apostate spirit, and the
evil angels his associates. In the former part of this work
full proof was given that in the Pagan world worship was
paid to evil beings considered as such (i). We are assur-
ed by the authority of St. Paul, that the " things which
the Gentiles sacrificed they sacrificed unto daemons;" and
the word is generally taken in a bad sense in the sacred
writings (/). The same thing is said by Pagan authors of

(^) See above, chap. v. p. 136, et seq.

(/) Origan expresses the general sense of the primitive
Christians, when he declares, that « the worship of those called
gods is the worship ©^f daejnons.— For all the gods of the nations

440 Christianity designed to overturn Part I.

the best credit. Plutarch expressly asserts, that many of the
rites of worship, usual among the Heathens, several of which
he mentions, were designed to placate and gratify evil and
malignant daemons. And particularly he charges those as
evil daemons, to whom human sacrifices were thought to be
acceptable. And it admits of an easy proof, that there were
scarce any of the Heathen deities to whom such sacrifices
were not offered, not excepting Jupiter the chief of them.
Several oracles might be mentioned, which expressly de-
manded human sacrifices. So also did the Sibylline oracles
on several occasions, which the Romans held in the greatest
veneration (m). And indeed such sacrifices continued to be
offered even in the civilized nations of Greece and Rome,
at least on some special occasions, till the coming of our
Saviour, and for some time after. (;z).

Porphyry, whose opposition to Christianity, and attach-
ment to Paganism is well known, goes so far as to pro-
nounce Serapis the chief of the Egyptian deities, and whom
the people worshipped as the highest God, to have been the

are dsemons— Sggatwg/* ^ettf^cve/v B^^x^tiu rcSv hvofAtA^cfAivui B-tSi.
vec»Tig y«§ et B-toi im iBvcav dcttfioym.** This is taken trom Psalm
xcv. 5 according to the Sepiuagint, and all the antient Chris-
tian writers apply this passage of the Psalmist to the Heathen
deities Oiigen goes on to observe, that " the Christians shun
the worship of daemons as pernicious and destructive, &»5 oXi6^ovJ"
And udds, '* we say that all that which is called among the
Greeks the worship of the gods, and which they solemnized by
by altars, statues, and temples, is the worship of daemons —

vx^u '^aiu.otg xeti uyuXfAccTi kcci y»oii B-tay B^^mTKiitcv. Contra Cels.
lib. vii. p. 378."

(m) Plutarch Rom. Quaest. Quaest. 83. Oper. torn. ii. p. 284.
A. Francof.

(n) See a fuller account of this above, chap. vii.

Chap. XXII. Satan's visible Kingdoin among Men, 441

prince of the evil daemons (o). That learned philosopher,
as was observed before, says, that evil daemons were very
desirous to have divine worship and sacrifices rendered to
them: and he not only acknowledges that they were wor-
shipped, but endeavours to justify that practice, as necessa-
ry for averting their wrath, and obtaining from them world-
ly good things. The same Porphyry, as cited by Eusebius,
produces an oracle of Apollo prescribing sacrifices to be
first offered to an evil daemon, to prepare the way for being
admitted to an immediate sight of the deity (/>). To destroy
this kingdom of Satan erected among the Gentiles, to
abolish the worship of their idol-deities, and erect the visible
kingdom and pure worship of the one living and true God
among men, was one glorious design of the Gospel of Jesus.
In this, as well as in other respects, it was certainly true,
that " for this purpose the Son of God was manifested that
he might destroy the works of the devil." 1 John iii. 8.
For this end he commissioned his Apostles to go " preach
the Gospel to all nations, and to turn them from darkness
unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God." Acts
xxvi. 17, 18. A mighty design this to be executed by such
seemingly mean and feeble instruments! But so it was order-
ed, that " the excellency of the power might appear to be
of God, and not of men." 2 Cor. iv. 7. The usurped empire
and dominion of Satan, founded in idolatry and polytheism,
seemed to be firmly established in the Heathen world. It
had stood for many ages, and had long prescription to
plead; it had the prejudices of the people on its side (^):

(o) Apud Euseb. Praep. Evangel, lib. iv. cap. 23.
(/z) Ibid. lib. iv. cap. 20.

{q) What regard was had to the tradition of their ancestors,
and the religion of their country, not onlf among the vulgar

Vol. I. 3 K

442 Christianity designed to overturn Part I-

and was strengthened and upheld by the power and autho-
rity of the magistrates, by the arts and subtilty of the poli-
ticians, the craft and influence of the idolatrous priests, and
the learning and eloquence of the philosophers and wise
men of this world. It was interwoven with the civil consti-
tution, and regarded as essential to the prosperity and hap-
piness of the state. It was guarded with all the powers and
all the terrors of the world on the one hand, and all its
pomps and allurements on the other; and came recommend-
ed by every thing which was apt to flatter men's vices and
their passions, their ambition and sensuality. And yet no

Pagans, but among the philosophers themselves, and how pro-
phane and impious a thing it was accounted to call it in ques-
tion, or so much as to ask a reason for it, appears from a re-
markable passage in Plutarch's Amatorius. When one of the
company, whom he calls Pemptides, desires to be informed on
what account Love came to be made a deity, another of the
dialogists, who bears a principal part in the conversation, and
who seems to express Plutarch's own sentiments, gravely says
to him; " you seem to me lo have attempted to stir things which
ought not to be moved with regard to the opinion concerning
the gods, when you demand a reason and demonstration for
every thing in particular. For the faith of our forefathers and of
our country is suflBcient for us, than which we cannot utter or
invent a more evident argument. — For this is a foundation com-
mon to all piety; and if once its firmness and established rule be
disturbed and shaken in any one instance, it becomes uncer-
tain and suspected in all."* This way of thinking and talking
was a bar to all attempts for the reformation of the Pagan reli-
gion. Every endeavour of this kind was looked upon as a high
degree of impiety and prophaneness. A manifest proof what
difficuliies Christianity at its first promulgation had to encounter
with, both from the learned and the vulgar.

* Plutarch. Oper.tom. II. p. 758. Francof. 1620

Chap. XXIL Satan's visible Kingdom among Men, 443

sooner were the first publishers of the Gospel sent forth, in
the name and by the spirit of a crucified Jesus, but Satan's
visible empire received a sensible shock. Never was there
a more sudden and glorious change than Christianity
wrought soon after its first appearance in the world. Thou-
sands were every wht-re turntd from idols to serve the liv-
ing and true God, delivered from the power of darkness,
and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son. The old
idolatrous worship and the long-adored deities fell into con-
tempt: the idol temples soon began to be in a great mea-
sure forsaken, and the boasted oracles, whereby the nations
had been so long kept under the power of delusion, were
struck dumb (r). Instead of the many gods and many lords

(r) That the oracles were silenced about or soon after the dme
of our Saviour's appearing, maybe proved from express testi-
monies, not only of Christian but of Heathen authors. Lucan
who writ his Pharsalia in the reign of Nero, scarce thirty years
after our Lord's crucifixion, laments it as one of the greatest
misfortunes of that age, that the Delphian oracle, which he re-
presents as one of the choicest gifts of the gods, was become
silent.

" Non ullo saecula dono
Nostra carent majore Deum quam, Delphica sedes
Quod sileat." Pharsal. lib. v. vers. 111.

In like manner Juvenal says,

*' Delphis oracula cessant,
Et genus humanum damnat caligo futuri."

Satyr, vi. vers. 544.

Lucian says, that when he was at Delphi the oracle gave no an-
stvers, nor was the priestess inspired See his Phalaris, Oper.
torn. i. p. 745. Amstel. This likewise appears from Plutarch's
treatise, Why the Oracles cease to give Answers} from whence

444 The Surprizing Propagation of Part I.

which were acknowledged and adored among the Heathens,
they were now brought in great numbers to acknowledge
and adore " one God the Father, of whom are all things,
and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by him." Instead of the many absurd and
impious rites of the Pagan worship, they were instructed
to worship God, who is an infinite spirit, in spirit and in
truth, in a pure and spiritual manner. Many there were who
in every place lifted up to God pure and holy hands, and
offered up to him, through the great Mediator of his own
appointment, the spiritual sacrifices of prayer, and praise.
The light of the Gospel spread ^ar and wide with a won-
derful swiftness even in the first age; so that St. Paul re-
presents it as having gone into the whole world, Col, i. 6.
23. Rom. X. 18. And this was what our Saviour himself
expressly foretold, at a time when nothing could be more
contrary to all human probability. Matt. xxiv. 14. Tacitus
speaks of a "huge multitude — multitudo ingens," of Chris-
tians at Rome, in a passage where he discovers the strongest
prejudices against them; and he also gives an account of a
great variety of torments and sufferings, to which, through
the cruelty of Nero, they were exposed (*). This happened
in a little more than thirty years after our Lord's passion.

also it is manifest, that the most learned Heathens were very
much at a loss how to give a tolerable account of it. Porphyry,
in a passage cited from him by Eusebius, says, *< The city of
Rome was over-run with sickness, iEsculapius and the rest of
the gods having withdrawn their converse with men: for that
since Jesus began to be worshipped, no man had received any
public help or benefit from the gods."*
(*) Tacit. Annal. lib. xv.

* Apud Euseb. Praep. Evangel, lib. v. cap. 1. p. 179-

Chap. XXII. Christianity among' the Gentiles. 44^

And it appears from Pliny's celebrated epistle to Trajan,
written about seventy years after the same great event, how
numerous the Christians were in his time. He says, there
were many of all ranks and ages, both men and women, who
professed themselves Christians: that the contagion of this
superstition had spread not only through the cities, but the
towns and country villages: that the temples had been al-
most left desolate, the holy rites and ceremonies had beea
long neglected, and that very few would buy the sacrifices.
He shews the strength of his prejudices against Chris-
tianity by calling it a wicked and immoderate superstition;
and yet gives a noble testimony to the innocency of their
manners; and makes the sum of their fault or error to
consist in this, that they were wont to meet on a stated day
before it was light, and to sing hymns to Christ as to a
God, and to oblige themselves by an oath not to commit
any wickedness, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and
adultery, to keep faith, and to restore any pledge that
was intrusted to them. He also bears testimony to their
fortitude and constanc)^, which he calls inflexible obsti-
nacy; and that it was said, none who were true Christians
can be compelled to offer wine or frankincense to the gods,
or to blaspheme Christ (f). Justin Martyr, who lived pretty
early in the following age, says, in a passage cited before,
that there was no part of mankind, whether Greeks or Bar-
barians, among whom prayers and thanksgivings were not
offered to the Father and Maker of the universe in the
name of a crucified Jesus.

This wonderful change in the face of things, and in the
state of religion in the Heathen world, was brought about
by the preaching of the Gospel, " God bearing witness"

(0 Plin. Epist. lib. x. epist. 97.

446 The Christian Revelation published Part I.

to the first publishers of Christianity " with signs and
wonders, and divers nxiracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost,
according to his own will," Heb. ii. 4. These were the vi-
sible tokens of a divine interposition, and awakened the at-
tention of mankind to behold and adore the power and ma-
jesty of the only true God. They saw all the pretended
wonders of their idol deities infinitely outdone. They saw
the first preachers of the Gospel, though in themselves^
weak and contemptible to all outward appearance, and
destitute of all worldly advantages, endued with such
power from on high, that they not only performed the
most extraordinary works, manifestly transcending the
power or skill of any man, or of all the men upon earth,
but evil spirits were subject to them in the name of Jesus,
These facts were not done in a comer, but in the open view
of the world, and of enemies strongly prejudiced against
them. Satan was as it were led in triumph by our Saviour,
who gave even his servants power over him. In contem-
plation of this our Lord expresseth himself thus, " I beheld
Satan as lightning fall from heaven," Luke x. 18. He had
pretended to have his throne in heaven, and to arrogate
divine honours. But now he was cast down from his as-
sumed divinity, and a visible church or kingdom was erec-
ted to God in those nations where Satan had erected a
kingdom of darkness before.

Upon the whole, the Christian RevelatiorL was made
known to the world at a time when it was most wanted;
when the darkness and corruption of mankind were arrived
at the height, and there were but few traces of the antient
primitive religion remaining among the nations. If it had
been published much sooner, and before there had been a
full trial made of what was to be expected from human
wisdom and philosophy, the great need men stood in of
such an extraordinary divine dispensation would not have

Chap. XXII. to the World in the fittest Season. 447

been so apparent. It might have been said that it was in-
troduced in illiterate and uncultivated ages, which was a
suspicious circumstance. Besides, it would have been de-
prived of the great advantage arising from the preparatory
Jewish economy, and from a series of illustrious prophe-
cies continued for many ages, all pointing to that wonder-
ful person who was appointed by the divine wisdom and
goodness to be the great Teacher and Saviour of mankind.
To which it may be added, that the Christian Revelation
made its first appearance at a time when the Roman em-
pire had brought the greatest part of the known world un-
der its dominion. It was first published among the nations
belonging to that empire, which was then the most know-
ing and civilized part of the earth, and from whence it
might most conveniently be propagated to other nations. Ac-
companied with the most illustrious and convincing proofs
and evidences of a divine power, presence and glorv, and
carrying in it remarkable internal characters of truth, good-
ness, and purity, it soon made a surprizing progress, not
withstanding the seemingly unsurmountable obstacles it
had to encounter with (w), till at length the whole system
of Paganism, which seemed so strongly established, and
which had prevailed for so many ages, fell before it. This
religion had extended very far, and if Christians had been
duly careful both to preserve it in its purity, and to pro-
pagate and recommend it by their instructions and exam-
ple, to which they are bound by the strongest obligations,
it would probably before now have been universally known

(u) The difficulties and obstacles Christianity had to strug-
gle with are represented in an elegant and striking manner by
Mr. West, in his excellent " Observations ©n the History and
Resurrection of Jesus Christ.**

4'i8 The Advantages we enjoy Part I.

and diffused. What farther extraordinary means it may
please God in his great wisdom and goodness to make use
of for diffusing and establishing true religion in the world,
we cannot tell. But something of this kind we are taught
to expect by several passages of Scripture, which seem
plainly to refer to a future general conversion of the Jews
to the Christian faith, and to the bringing in the fulness of
the Gentiles (^). And whenever this shall happen, it will
disclose a surprizing scene, which will fill us with a pleasing
astonishment, and tend mightily to illustrate the glory of
Divine Providence,

In the mean time let us be thankful to God for the ad-
vantages we enjoy by the Gospel for religious and moral
improvement. " How great and admirable," saith Eusebius,
"should the Gospel of our Saviour Jesus Christ appear
to us, v?hich instructs the whole race of mankind to wor-
ship with becoming thoughts and devotion the God and
Lord of the sun and moon, the Creator of the whole world,
and who is himself above and beyond the universe: to
praise and celebrate not the elements of bodies, but the
Dispenser of life, of food, and of all good things: and in
no wise to worship the visible parts of the world, or any
thing that is perceivable by the fleshly sense, since every
such thing is of a corruptible nature; but to adore that

(jt) The ingenious author of the Lettres Juives, speaking in
t\}Q person of a Jew, acknowledges the piety and zeal of the first
Nazarenes, who shed their blood to draw mankind from idolatry;
and that if the unity of God is known throughout the whole
world, it is to them that it is principally owing. '* 11 faut avouer
que c*etoient de grands hommes qui verserent leur sang pour
retirer les hommes de idolatrie: et si l*unite de Dieu est connu
dans I'univers entier, c'est a eux a qui on est singulierement
redevable."

Chap. XXII. by the Gospel Revelation. 449

Mind alone, which being in itself invisible is present in all
these things, and is the Architect both of the whole uni-
verse and every part of it, and which, shewing forth the
wonderful virtue and greatness of its Divinity, in all things
both in heaven and in earth, governeth the whole world in
a manner not to be perceived by our senses, and by reasons
of wisdom which no language can express! (y)"

In order to our making a right use of the advantages
we enjoy by the Gospel Revelation, let us set a high value
on the Holy Scriptures, and adhere to them as the great
rule of our faith and practice. They are acknowledged by
all Christians to be of divine authority. They contain the
original Records of our holy religion, and of the revelation
that was brought from heaven, as delivered in its primitive
purity and simplicity by our Lord Jesus Christ and his
apostles. If we would form a just idea of Christianity, free
from all the additions and corruptions which were after-
wards brought into it, we must carefully consult those di-
vine oracles. Happy would it have been for the Christian
church, if they had all along kept close to that sacred rule.
They would not then have fallen into those gross corrup-
tions in doctrine, worship, and practice, which have created
prejudices in the minds of many against Christianity, and
from which infidels have taken occasion to form their
most plausible objections: though in reality these things
cannot be justly charged upon the religion of Jesus as de-
livered in the Holy Scriptures. It is however the mighty
advantage of a written Revelation, that by an impartial
consulting it the deviations from it may be detected, and
things may be again reduced to the original standard. By

{y) Euseb. Praepar. Evangel, lib. iii. cap. 6. p. 96, 97. Paris
1628.

Vol. I. 3 J.

450 The Advantages we enjoy Part I.

means of the Scriptures, even the vulgar themselves may
be sufficiently instructed in the most important articles of
religion, and may be provided with a proper remedy, both
against the impositions of designing men, and against
idolatry in all its forms, though covered over with the
most specious pretences. Eusebius justly reckons it among
the advantages for which we ought to have a high esteem
for the Gospel Revelation, that thereby books and doctrines,
which contain rules of consummate virtue, and tend to
form the manners to true piety, are delivered to men, wo-
men, and children, and are publicly read and explained for
the use of all (x).

If we have now the knowledge of the only true God, if
not only men of great learning and deep speculation, but
thousands of the people in Christian nations have a juster
notion of God, of his Providence, and of the worship that
is due to him, in opposition to all idolatry and polytheism,
than even the wise men and philosophers among the Pa-
gans, to what can this so properly be ascribed, as to the
light of Divine Revelation which shineth among us? How
thankful therefore should we be to God, and how desirous
to shew forth his praises and virtues, who hath, in his
grace and mercy, called us out of darkness into his mar-
vellous light! Surely we should regard the having the Holy
Scriptures in our hands as the greatest and most valuable
of all our privileges. And it highly concerneth us to en-
deavour to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour, by
walking in a holy exemplary conversation, becoming the
Gospel of Christ. And the obligations we are under to do
this will farther appear, if it be considered, that we are
thereby not only instructed in the right knowledge and

{x) Praepar. Evangel, lib. v. cap. 1. p. 181,

Chap. XXII. by Gospel Revelation, 451

worship of the only true God in opposition to all idolatry
and polytheism, but we have also a perfect rule of moral
duty set before us in all its just extent, and enforced by a
divine authority, and by the most powerful and engaging
motives; and that we have also the fullest discoveries there
made to us of a future state of retributions, and the great
important realities of an unseen eternal world. And that in
both these respects the nations stood in great need of an
extraordinary Divine Revelation, especially about the time
of our Saviour's appearing, is what I propose to shew in
the remaining part of this work.

END OF PART I.

INDEX

THE FIRST VOLUME.

QTj' The letter N. refers to the Notes at the bottom of the page.

Abraham — was at first an idolater, and in what sense he
was so, page 67. He afterwards endeavoured, according to the
Oriental writers, to promote a reformation of religion among
the Chaldeans, 68. Was regarded as a prophet among the Ca-
naanites and Egyptians, ibid. His fame spread far and wide,
especially among the people of the East, 395, 396. Nations
proceeding from him for a long time retained some know-
ledge of the one true God, 396.

Academics — those of what was called the New Academy held,
that some things are more probable than others; in which they
differed from the Pyrrhonians: yet in reality agreed with
them, that there is no certainty to be attained to, and that we
ought always to withhold our assent, 242. They and other
sceptics are represented by Epictetus as the most incorrigible
of all men, and unfit to be reasoned with, 242, 243.

Alexandria — a celebrated school of philosophers established
there after Christianity had made some progress in the world,
429. There was a mixture of Christians and Pagans in that
school, 430. Several things in the philosophy taught there
were borrowed from the Sacred Writings, 431. See AmmO'

454 INDEX.

Allegories — The Stoics and other philosophers endeavoured to
turn the traditionary fables concerning the gods into physical
allegories, 265. See also 118. 336, 3S7.

Mtar — erected at Athens to the unknown God, 378. Altars of
this kind in many places, 379. N.

America^ People of — generally have a notion, according to
Acosta, of one Supreme God, who is perfectly good; but ma-
ny of them confound him with the sun, 82. They worship an
evil being or beings, for fear of being hurt by them, ibid, et >
139.

Ammonius Saccas — a famous president of the Alexandrian school,
lived and died a Christian, according to Eusehius and St.. Je-
rome, 430. — was born and educated under Chris^tian parents,
according to Porphyry, but afterwards embraced Paganism:
and from him were derived the philosophers of what was call-
ed the Sacred Succession, ibid. He mixed with his philosophy
several things originally derived from the Holy Scriptures, ib.

Anaxagoras — was accused at Athens of impiety, because he held
the sun, moon, and stars to be inanimate bodies, 9 I. — severely
censured on that account by Socrates and Plato, ibid. He was
the first of the Gieek philosophers who clearly asserted God
to be an infinite mind, absolutely separated from matter, 250.
260. He held matter to be eternal, but that mind was the cause
of the regular order of things, 261. 282. — yet he himself did
not make a right use and application of this principle in ac-
counting for the phaenomena of nature, which he ascribed to
material causes; and for this he is blamed by Socrates, 262.
His account of the formation of animals, not much different
from that of Epicurus, ibid.

Antiquities, extravagant — of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Chi-
nese, fabulous, and not to be depended upon, 66.

Antoninus, Marcus — the emperor and philosopher, holds that
the world is God, 291. — and that the human soul is a portion
of the Divine Essence, ibid N. — generally expresses himself
in the polytheistic strain; and represents the gods as the au-
thors and orderers of all things, 305. et seq. He was zealous
and diligent in the observation of the Pagan rites and ceremo-
nies, 325. 427.
Arabians — Noble notions of the Deity and of Religion among

INDEX. 455

them in the clays of Job, 70. Yet in his time many of them fell
into the idolatrous worship of the heavenly bodies, ibid, et 89.

Aratus — The passage produced from him to shew, that the
Heathen Jupiter was the one true Supreme God, considered,
380,381.

Aristotle — mentions it as an antient tradition, that the stars are
gods; and observes, that the representing the gods in the forms
of men and other animals, was added afterwards, for political
purposes, 90 et 422. — asserts one eternal first Mover, whom
he calls the Supreme God; but that the stars are also true
eternal deities, 269. He taught the eternity of the world both
in its matter and form, and in this was generally followed by
the Peripatetics and latter Platonists, 282— denied that Provi-
dence extendeth its care to things below the moon, 355. N.

Arnobius — represents the pernicious effects of the vicious exam-
ples of the Heathen deities, 120 — observes, that any man
would be punished that should charge a magistiate or senator
vith such actions as were ascribed to their gods, 161 — gives a
long account of the impurities of their worship, 17'3 — makes
a very unfavourable representation of the Eleusinian myste-
teries, 'i23.

Assyrians — gave the name of Adad to the highest God, and by
him understood the sun: they also worshipped a goddess call-
ed Adargatis, i. e. the earth; and to these tv/o ascribed the
power over all things, 94.

./fMew/an*— condemned Anaxagoras for saying, that the sun is a
body of fire, and the moon an habitable earth, 91 — yet they
shewed no resentment against Epicurus and other philoso-
phers who ascribed the formation of the world to chance, 251.
They had a great zeyl for the mysteries, 218 — were exces-
sively addicted to superstition and idolatry, 219. St. Paul sup-
poses the true God to be unknown to them, 378, 379, et seq.

Attestations., extraordinary — given to the Divinity of our Sa-
viour's mission, and to the truth of Christianity, 436, 437.

Augustiri) St. — offers several things to shew the close connection
there was between the civil and poetical theology of the Pa-
gans, 159, et seq.— observes, that the theatrical plays made a
part of the public religion of the Romans, and were supposed
to be acceptable to the gods, and fit means fon appeasing them,
and averting their displeasure, 160.

456 INDEX.

Baniery jibbe de — shews, that the fables of the antient mythology
were not merely allegorical, but originally founded upon his-
torical facts, 102, 103.

Bel — the chief deity of the Babylonians, and Baal of the Phoeni-
cians, were used to signify both a deified man and the sun,
101. Punishments denounced against Bel by the prophets
Isaiah and Jeremiah, 113. This might probably have been at
first used as the name of the one Supreme God, but was after-
wards transferred to an idol, 282.

Bolin^broke^ Lord — declares, that man is a religious creature,
and that this is his chief pre-eminence above the brutes, 42 —
gives it as his opinion, that the variety of phaenomena would
be apt to lead the first men not to one first cause, but to ima-
gine a variety of causes, 48 — owns, that the Pagans lost sight
of the one true God, and suffered imaginary beings to inter-
cept the worship due to him alone, 85. 155.

Canaanites and Phanicians'-lt does not appear that they were
generally idolaters, when Abraham first came among them;
but they were overrun with idolatry and polytheism in the
days of Moses, 69.

Cafiitolinus^ Jvfiittr — worshipped among the antient Romans as
the chief deity of their religion and laws; not the one true
God, but the principal of their idol deities, to whom they as-
cribed the peculiar titles and attributes of the Supreme God,
114 et seq. et 157 — the same with the Jupiter of the poets,
115, 116. See JupUer.

Ceylon^ the people of — acknowledge one God to be supreme, but
believe he does not concern himself with human affairs; they
have priests and temples dedicated to inferior deities, but none
to the Supreme, 81, 82 — they worship evil beings, 139.

Chaldeans and Assyrians — were among the first corrupters of the
most antient and primitive religion, 67. 86,87 — yet the know-
ledge of the one true God was in some degree preserved
among them, and in Mesopotamia, for a considerable time,
though mixed with some idolatrous and superstitious usages,
68. According to Berosus they supposed Bel to be the maker

INDEX. 457

of heaven and earth; but Diodorus tells us, they held the world
to be eternal, and that it was neither generated nor liable to
corruption, 282.

Chaos — the tradition of the world's havinc; been made out of a
chaos, of universal extent, and derived from the first ages,
58. 72.

Chinese — probably in the most antient times had the knowledge
of the one true God, but soon fell into idolatry, 66, They wor-
shipped, from a remote antiquity, the heaven and earth, the
sun, moon, and stars, /6zW. et 95. Their philosophers have a
double doctrine, the one private for the use of the learned, the
other popular for political purposes, 236. N. Those of the
learned sect in China generally atheists, 254. N. Their absurd
account of the origin of things, 253. Held one universal sub-
stance, and that all things are the same, 285. N.

Christian Revelation — designed to promote the salvation of all,
and therefore published clearly and openly to the people, 239
—suited to the necessities of mankind, and such as their state
required, 437 — admirably fitted to recover the nations from
their idolatry and polytheism to the right knowledge and wor-
ship of the one true God, 438. It subverted the visible king-
dom of Satan in the Heathen world, though strongly esta-
blished, 438, 439, et seq. Christianity had amazing difficulties
to encounter with at its first promulgation, yet through a
divine power accompanying it, overcame them all, 441, 442.
The speedy progress it made in the first age, and the wonder-
ful change it wrought in the face of religion among the na-
tions, 444, et seq. It was published to the world when it was
most wanted, and in the properest season, 446 — fitted and
designed to be promulgated to all nations, and in due time
shall be so, 416, 447.

Chubby Mr. — allows, that a Revelation is possible, and may be
useful, but pretends we have no way of knowing whether it
be divine, 19.

Cicero — has many passages concerning the proofs of a deity from
the works of nature, 76, 77 — approves the paying divine ho-
nours to men that had been famous, and worshipping them as
gods, 100 — asserts, that the Dii majorum gentium, those that
were accounted gods of the higher order, were taken from
among men, 103, 104 — makes very free with the Pagan dei-
VoL. II. 3 M

458 INDEX.

ties, but was not for doing this openly before the people, lest
it should prejudice the public reliiijion, 180. His account of ^hc
mysteries considered, 187, 188. His books de Natura Ueorum
give an authentic proof how much the greatest men among
the Pagans were fallen from the knowledge of the one true
God, 247. His notion of God seems to come nearest to that of
the btoics, 270. He will not allow shat God created the mat-
ter out of which heaven and earth was made, 278 — expresses
himself generally in the polytheistic strain, 299, et seq. In
argumg for the existence of God and a Providence, he leads
the people to a plurality of deities, SOO, 301 — in his treatise
of laws prescribes the worship, not of one Supreme God, but
of a plurality of gods, 329 — passes an unreasonable censure
upon the Jewish religion, 408. N.

Civil theology See Theology.

Clemens Mexandrinus — was well acquainted with the Pagan mys-
teries: the account he gives of them much to their disadvan-
tage, 221, 222.

Conflagration of the ivorld — The tradition concerning it was of
great antiquity, and spread generally among the nations, 58.

Confuciua^ the famous Chinese philosopher — was a great uphold-
er of the antient superstitions, and would not suffer the least
deviation from them, 330 — seems to have considered religion
chiefly in a political view, ibid, et 331.

Cosmogony — or an account of the formation of the world, dis-
guised and corrupted by turning it into a theogony, or an ac-
count of the generation of the gods. Such is Hesiod*s Theo-
gony, which is a jumble of gods, heroes, and the things of
nature personified, 130.

Creation of the ivorld — many remarkable vestiges of the history
of the creation continued for a long time among the nations,
72, et seq.

Cudivorth^ £)r.— observes that the Pagan theology was all along
confounded with a mixture of physiology and herology blend-
ed together, 106. 113, 124. His pretence that the Jupiter of the
Pagans was the one true God, worshipped both by the philoso-
phers and the people, examined, 106, et seq. see also 374. He
was fond of the hypothesis, that the different Pagan divinities
were only different names and manifestations of the one true
God, 124 — gives it as a general observation, that the most refin-

INDEX. 459

cd Pagans agreed in two things; in crumbling the onesiniple
deity into parts, and in theologizing the whole world, ar d deify-
ing the natures of things, accidents and inanimate bodies, 134,
135 — acknowledges that the civil theolof>y of the Pagans as
well as the poetical, had not only n any fantastic gods in it,

but an appearance of a plurality of independent deities, 156

asserts that all the Pagans were in (;r.e respect or other cos-
molaters, or world worshippers, 295. His apolrgy for the Pa-
gan idolatry shewn to be insufficient; and he himself passes a
just censure upon it, as confounding God and the creature,
296 — endeavours to prove from Si. PauTs discourse to the
Athenians, that the .generality even of the vulgar Pagans wor-
shipped the true God, the same whom we adore, 372, et seq.
He makes several concessions in his book which are not well
consistent with his scheme, 391, et seq.

Damons — worship of evil daemons very common in the Pagan
world, 132, et seq. See also 439.

Deluge^ universal— General tradition concerning it among the
nations, 5 4. N. 'I/he remembrance of it had a tendency to
injpress men's minds with the fear of God, and a sense of his
Providence, 54, 55. The heads of families after the flood car-
ried the main principles of religion into the several regions of
their dispersion, which were never entirely exunguished, 55,
56. The Eastern prirts of ihe world were first peopled and set-
tled aher the flood: their civil polities were formed, and the
greatest vestiges of the antient religion were to be found.
From thence knowledge was communicated to the Western
parts, 57.

Diodorus Sicuius — His account of the different ways of philoso-
phizing among the Chaldaeuns and the Greeks, 57 — blames
the Greek philosophers for leading men into perpetual doubts,
245. In the account he gives of the Egyptian theology he lakes

• no notice of the Deity as having had any concern in the for-
mation of things, 252.

Diogenes^ the Cynic — his sneer at the Pagan mysteries, 188 N.

Dyonysiua Halicarnasseus — His judicious censure on the Pagan
mythology, 152 — he highly commends the civil theology of
the antient Romans, 154.

460 INDEX.

Eclectic!^ — Pagan philosophers so called after our Saviour's com-
ing, who professed to select that which was best out of the
several sects of philosophers, and to form it into one body,
429.

Education and Instruction — necessary to give men just notions
of natural religion, 6, 7 — the great advantage of it shewn from
Plato and Plutarch, ibid.

Egyfitians — It does not appear that they were idolaters in the
days of Abraham, nor was their religion entirely corrupted in
the time of Joseph, 69, 70. The pretence that a great part of
the Egyptian polytheism was nothing but the worshipping the
one true God under different names and notions, examined,
124. 125. Egyptian animal worship considered, 128. See also
l40, et seq. — it was introduced under pretence of great wis-
dom, 141. See also 337. They had a twofold theology, one for
the vulgar, the other communicated to a very few, and care-
fully concealed from the people, 235, 236. According to Laer-
tius, they held matter to be the principle of things, 252. Many
of iheir priests and philosophers held no other gods but the
stars, and supposed the sun to be the demiurgus or framer of
the world, and that there was no incorporeal maker of the
universe, ibid, et 253. The to -jtS*, or the universe, their first
and chief god, 283, et seq. High character given of the Egyp-
tian priests by Porphyry. 338. They differed among themselves
in the interpretations they gave of the fables relating to their
deities, 340. The temples ot the Egyptians were in the most
antient times without statues. 418— their gradual progress in
idolatry represented from Diodorus, ibid. N.

E/iictetus — speaks of God and the gods promiscuously, and fre-
quenily expresses himself in the polytheistic strain, 305 —
makes the human soul to be a part or portion of the divine es-
sence, 290. N. — advises every man to worship according to
the rites of his country, 324, 325.

Euhemerus., the Mebsenian — gave an historical account of all the
Pagan deities, their births, lives, and actions, and their deaths,
103, et 119. N. For this he is blamed by Cicero, who yet ac-
knowledges that their principal gods had once been men, and
intimates that this was taught in the mysteries, 103. Plu-
tarch's severe censure of Euhemerus examined, 105, et 197.

INDEX. 461

Evidence, Moral — in some cases of such certainty that it may be
absolii ely depended upon, 22 The knovvledtd:e of important
mati'ers relating to religion may be communicated in this way,
ihid.

Eusfbius — His just observations on the Pagan mythology, 151.
He had a bad opinion of the Heathen mysteries, 222. A fine
passage from him concerning the excellency qf the Christian
revelation, and how thankful we should be to God for it, 448,
449.

Examfiles^ vicious — of the Heathen deities, had a tendency to
corrupt the morals of the people, 120. The ill effect of them
was not to be obviated by allegorical interpreiaiions, or by any
other way ihan discarding the popular deities, and overturning
the Pagan polytheism, 212.

Fables — See Mythology.

Fate, or JVecessiiy — Many philosophers held that all things are
subject to it, 362. ^

Forbidden Fruit — The law concerning it had nothing in it un-
worthy of the Divine wisdom and goodness, 50. N.

Fortune — regarded by the Heathens as a capricious deity, and as
having a pnncipai sway in the affairs of this-Iower .world; it
was universally invoked, and both honoured and reproached,
348. Temples erected to ii, ibid. Some philosophers were for
dividing the administration of things between Fate or Neces-
sity, Fortune and Providence, 363.

Galen — represents Moses as having taught that God made the
world, but that he did not form it out of pre-existent matter:
and asserts, that this was that in which he differed from Plato
and the most excellent of the Greek philosophers, 278.

Gloucester, Bishop of — gives a high idea of the nature and design
of the Pagan mysteries, 182 — says, that the Unity of God was
taught there; but that it was a secret intrusted to a very few,
209 — and that in the open worship of Paganism, either public
or particular," the creature was the sole object of adoration, 389.

GOD — The notion of one Supreme God was n.ever entirely ex-
tinguished in the Pagan world, 74, et seq. It was derived by a

462 INDEX.

constant tradition from the most remote antiquity, ibid. The
wonderful works of God contributed to keep up the notion of
a Deity among the natifins, 75. There was a [general consent
of mankind concerning the existence of a Deity in opposition
to atheism, but not in the acknowledgment of the Unity of
God, 77. 385. The poets frequently speak of one Supremt^
God, but confound him with ihat Jupiter who was the chief of
their idol deities, 77. 107, et seq. The same may be said of the
vulgar Pagans, 1 16. 157. See Jupiter

GOD is one and all thini^., — This is the great maxim of the
Egyptian and Orphic schools, 284. The abuse ot this maxim
was, in Dr. Cudworth's opinion, the chief ground of the poly-
theism of the Egyptians, Greeks, and other Pagans, /6/c?. They
at length carried ii so far as to call every thing by the name
of God, and Gud by the name of every thing, 296. See Hea-
thens.

God^ — Those of the higher order, the diimajorum gentium, had
orce been men, 103. The dii selecti and consentes treated of
bj Varro, 161, Worse thir.g«. were said of them, and more fla-
gitious actions ascribed to ther.i, than to the gods of a lower
order, f^z^. Socrates makes the first law of nature to be this,
tiat men should worship the gods. 299. The most eminent
philosophers, in arguing for the existence of God against the
atheists, pleaded for a plurality of gods, 300. When they men-
tion the consent of nations with respect to a Deity, they make
it to relate not to one God only, but to the gods, 301. See also
385. Many of the passages produced by Christian writers, to
shew that the Heathens acknowledt^ed the existence and attri-
butes of the one true God, relate to a plurality ot deities, 309.
The gods are represented as join sharers in making and go-
vernmg the world, 311. See also 199 264. 315. 361. They do
not properly answer to angels in the Christian system, 315.

Goguet^ Monsieur — in his treatise De I'Origine des Loix, 8cc.
observes that the circumstances mankind were in for some
ages after the flood, occasioned their mailing a slow progress
in the sciences, 55. He exposes the fabulous antiquities of the
antient Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Chinese, 65 — vindicates the
antiquity of the book of Joi>, 7> — observes, that the higher one
goes towards the ages nearest the creation, the more we find
of the visible traces of this great truth, 72.

INDEX. 463

Gospel — What a blessing it was to the world, and how thankful
we should be to God for it, 448, et seq. See Christian Revela-
tion.

Greeks — Their most antient philosophy traditionary, 57. Their
most celebrated philosophers and legislators travelled into the
East, to obtain the knowledge of religion and laws, ibid, et 272.
The niost antient Greeks held the heavenly bodies, the earth,
&c. to be the only gods, 89. The impuriues of their worship,
169, et seq. Philo.^ophy, as it was managed among them,
tended rather to unsettle men's minds, than to rectify their er-
rors, 245.

Guinea^ Negroes of — generally have a notion of one Supreme
Almighty Being; but believe he does not concern himself with
human affairs, and therefore do not worship him, but a multi-
tude of other deities, 81.

Hammon, Jufiiter — The name supposed by Dr. Cudworth to have
been first derived from Ham or Cham the son of Noah, and
afterwards made use of to signify the Supreme God, 113 —
condemned by the prophet Jeremiah as an idol, 1 14— regard-
ed and abhorred as such by the primitive Christians, 120.

Heathens — Tradition of the one Supreme God never utterly ex-
tinguished among them, 74, ct seq. They were sensible of the
force of the argument for the existence of God from the works
of nature, 77 — generally agreed, that the formation of things
was not owing to chance; but many of them ascribed it to a
plurality of causes or authors, ibid, et 20 1 . Those of them that
acknowledged one Supreme God corrupted the doctrine of the
Unity, by making him to be of the same nature, though of a
higher order than the rest, 78, et 157. It was a general notion
among them, that the Supreme God did not concern himself
with the affairs of this world, but committed them wholly to
inferior deities. And this .was a principal cause of their idola-
try, 82. N. See also 357. N. Some of them worshipped many
gods, without any distinct notion of one absolutely supreme.
Among others the worship of the Supreme God was neglect-
ed, or confounded with that of a multitude of idol deities, 83,
84. 155. Their first deviation from the worship of the one true
God was their worshipping heaven and the heavenly bodies,

464 INDEX.

86, et seq. The next was the worshipping of heroes or deified
nien,99,et seq. They still retained some notion of the Supreme
Divinity, and the titles and attributes which belonged to him,
but applied them to their idol deities, especially to Jupiter,
the chief of them, 107. 114.310, N. They turned the names and
attributes of God into distinct personal divinities, and worship-
ped them as such, 125. The images and symbols of the gods
had also divine worship paid to them, 128. They deified what-
soever was useful in human life, the meanest things not ex-
cepted, 130 And, instead of giving God the glory of his gifts,
turned those very gifts into deities, 131. The accidents, and
qualities and affections of the human mind were deified, ibid.
The most refined of the Heathens agreed in crumbling the
one simple Deity into parts, and multiplying it into many gods
and goddesses, and in deifying the several parts of the world,
and things of nature, 134. They supposed God to be in a man-
ner all things, and that therefore he was to be worshipped in
every thing, 135. The worship of evil beings was very com-
mon among them, ibid, et seq. Many of the Heathen rites
cruel, and contrary to humanity, 163, et seq. The licentious-
ness and impurity of their religion and worship, 169. 173.
They had a notion of a divine providence, but parcelled it out
among a multiplicity of deities, 345. The Scripture represen-
tation of the deplorable state of the Heathen world shewn to be
just and agreeable to fact, 138, et seq. Corruption of religion
among the Pagans no just objection against the wisdom and
goodness of Divine Providence, 394, et seq. The fault is to be
charged only upon themselves, 410. The great patience and
forbearance of God towards them, 412. Amidst all their cor-
ruptions there were still some remains of the main principles
of religion preserved among them, ibid. The Gospel was de-
signed to deliver them from the power of Satan, whose visible
kingdom was erected among the nations, 438, et seq. Not only
the vulgar Heathens, but the philosophers were strongly ad-
dicted to the religion of their ancestors, and accounted it an
impious thing to attempt the least alteration in it, 441, 442. N.

Heaven — acknowledged and worshipped as the Supreme God,
92, et seq.

Heavenly Bodies — The notion that they were animated gave oc-
casion to the worshipping them, 87. N. The worship of the hea-

INDEX. 455

ve»ily bodies was the most antient idolatry, and obtained almost
universally among mankind, the most civilized as well as bar-
barous nations, 95.
Herbert^ Lord — holds, that God had imprinted on the minds of
all men innate ideas of the Deity, and of the main principles
of religion, 5 His apology for the Pagan worship of the hea-
venly bodies considered, 95. Several nations, by his own ac-
count, regarded the sun as the Supreme God, 96 He acknow-
ledges, thai there was a strange confusion in the Heathen reli-
gion, IGO. 125. And that they worshipped not only the whole
world taken together, but even its particles or smaller parts,
133. He is for entirely discarding the poetical mythology, and
having no regard to it all in enquiring into the religion of the
antient Pagans, 145.
Heroes^ or deified men, worship of — an idolatry of an early date,
99 — encouraged by the antient legislators, princes, and states,
for political purposes, 100. The peculiar names and attributes
of the Supreme God ascribed to them, ibid. 101. The Dii ma-
jorum gentium, the principal objects of the Pagan worship,
had once been men, 104. The mysteries were not designed to
abolish that worship, but rather to countenance and promote
it, 194, et seq.
Herology, or the history of their heroes — blended with physio-
logy in the theology of the Pagans, which occasioned a mon-
strous jumble in their worship, 105. 113, 124 — and had a per-
nicious influence on religion and morals, 120.
HottentotH — acknowledge one Supreme Being, the maker of hea-
ven and earth, but pay him no worship, 80. They worship an
evil being, whom they look upon as the author of all mischief,
that they may avert his malice, 81.
Human imsdom and fihilosophy — insufficient for recovering man-
kind from their idolatry and polytheism without a higher as-
(sistance, 424^ et seq.
Hume, Mr. David — His opinion that the first men did not come
to tTie knowledge of God by reasoning from the works of na-
ture, 46 — asserts that idolatry was the first religion of mankind,
and that they were for many ages necessarily polytheists and
idolaters, 62. His account of the first original of the idea of
God, and of religion, examined, 63. N,
Vol. n. 3 N

466 INDEX.

Hydey Dr. — His accoiml of the religion of the antient Persians
referred to, 67. 72. 89. 155. See Persians, and Zoroaster,

lamblicus — The account he gives of the antient Egyptian theo-
logy not to be depended upon, 253 — acknowledges the neces-
sity of revelation and divine illumination for instructing men
in those things that are most pleasing to God, 433.

Idolatry — not the most antient religion of mankind, 63, et seq.^
The first and most antient idolatry was not an utter casting off
the knowledge and worship of the one true God, but the wor-
shipping him in a superstitious manner, and joining with him
other objects of worship, 65. Idolatry began in Chaldea, Egypt,
and the neighbouring countries, 67, et 395. An account of the
progress of idolatry, and the sevei'al steps by which it advanc-
ed, till at length it proceeded to the deifying and worshipping
every thing in nature, chap. iii. iv. v. See Heathens. Idolatry
not a mere speculative absurdity, but had a pernicious influence
on the morals of the people, 174. The legislators and civil
magistrates had a great hand in promoting and maintaining
the public idolatry and polytheism, 180. The philosophers in-
stead of reclaiming the people from their idolatry, encouraged
and devised plausible pretences to justify and defend it, 332,
et seq. Methods made use of by Divine Providence to check
the progress of Idolatry, 395, et seq. Idolatry gathered
strength among the nations as they grew in learning and po-
liteness, 4.4, et seq.

Jehovah — The peculiar name of the true God among the He-
brews not utterly unknown to the Gentiles, 405. N. — called by
Diodorus, Tao, by Philo-Biblius from Sanchoniathon, leuo; de-
clared by the Oracle of the Clarian Apollo to be the highest of
the gods, ibid. lo-pater and Jovis probably derived from the
name Jehovah, ibid.

Jewish Constitution — The knowledge and worship of the one true
God, and of him only, the fundamental principle of that esta-
blishment, whereby it was gloriously distinguished from all
other constitutions, 155 — See also 313. N. et 396. It was im-
mediately promulgated to one particular people, but was in
several respects of use to othernations, 398, et seq. — designed

INDEX. 467

to prepare the way for a more perfect and extensive dispensa-
tion, which was to succeed it, 410. 436, et se<j.
Jenvs or Israelites-^^svere placed in an advantageous situation for
diffusinj^ the knowledge of their religion and laws, 398. —
yet kept distinct from other people for wise ends, ibid. In the
flourishing times of their state they had an extensive dominion
and correspondence, and afterwards their captivities and dis-
persions contributed to spread them abroad among the na-
tions, ibid. Decrees of the greatest monarchs in their favour,
399. Notwithstanding the odium and contempt cast upon them
by the Heathens in general, yet they were had in esteem by
many of ihe Pagans for the wisdom and excellency of their re-
ligion and laws, 400, et seq. They were dispersed in great
numbers, about the time of Christ's coming, through a great
part of the known world, 406, et scq. The Heathens had by
their means a good opi^ortunity of coming at the knowledge of
the one true God in opposition to all idohitry and polytheism,
408 — and it actually had that effect in many instances, ibid. If
the Heathens in general did not make a right use of this ad-
vantage, the fault was in themselves, and owing to their neg-
ligence and prejudices, 409. False representations made of
the Jews by Heathen historians and philosophers, 408. et
seq. N.

Imagc-worshifi — Images of the gods supposed to have divine
powers residing in them, turned into deities, and worshipped
as such, 128. The worship of images apologized for and re-
commended by the philosophers, 335. It probably first began
among the Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Egyptians, 416. bome
antient nations abstained for a long time from the worship of
images, 4 !8 The Romans had no images in their temples for
170 years after the building ol Rome, 420. Images of the Deity
disapproved by Numa and by Varro, ibid. There was a vast
variety of gods and images among the Greeks and Romans in
the latter times of their state, when they were remarkable for
their politeness and philosophical learning, 421, et seq.

Indians — Many tribes among them acknowledge one Supreme
Being, but think he takes no care of men or their affairs, but
commits them to other gods as his vicegerents, 81.

Jui-ves Lettrcs^ Author of— acknowledges the necessity of Reve-
lation to instruct men how to worship God in a right manner,

468 INDEX.

433. N. — and that it was owing to the piety and zeal of the
first publishers oi Christianity, thai (he unity ot God is gene-
rally known throughout the world, 448. N.

Julian^ the emperor — paid an extraordinary devotion to the sun,
93. He says we ought to look upon the whole creation with
religious eyes, so as to see and worship God in every thing,
333 — pretends, that the Hebrews did not know the first God,
but took the Creator of the world for the highest God, where-
as there is one higher than he, 342.

Jupiter and Jovis — Various senses in which this name was used
among the Pagans, viz. for the world, the soul or the world,
the sun, the aether, the air, and the hero Jupiter the son of
Saturn, 107. The name supposed by Dr. Cudworth to be of
Hebraical extraction. It was originally appropriated to the one
true God, and afterwards applied to the chief of the idol dei-
ties, ibid. The Jupiter of the poets was not the one true God:
the most divine epithets and attributes were ascribed to him,
and at the same time the most criminal actions, 79. 108, et
seq. The Jupiter of the poets was the same with the popular
Jupiter, the object of vulgar adoration among the Pagans, 113.
1 15. He was regarded by them as superior to the other gods,
but of the same kind, though of higher eminency than the
rest, 1 16, et seq. See also 79, et 157. The primitive Christians
would rather endure any torments than acknowledge Jupiter
to be the one true God, or call the true God by the name of
Jupiter, 120. St. Paul did not suppose Jupiter and the other
names of the Pagan deities to be only different names and no-
tions of the one true God, 383. Dr. Cudworth's attempt to
shew that the generality even of the vulgar Pagans worship-
ped the true God under the name of Jupiter, examined, 391.
See Cudworth,

Knefih — The inhabitants of Thebais in Egypt worshipped the
Maker of the world under that name, 69 He was represented,
according to Porphyry, in an human form, ibid, 209. Accord-
ing to others in the form of a serpent with a hawk's head,
209. N.

Laws — every where amon^ the Pagans established the worship
not of one God only, but of many gods, 155.

INDEX. 469

Learned Sect in China — See Chinese.

Legislators and Civil Magistrates — had a principal hand in esta-
blishing and promoting idolatry and polytheism, 100. 179. 218.

Long lives of the first Men — a great advantage for transmitting
the knowledge of religion by tradition, 52. Testimonies of the
Heathen writers concerning it, 55 N.

Lusts, unnatural — in some places made a part of the Heathen
religion, 171.

Macrohius^ a Pagan author — takes great pains to prove, that the
sun was the one universal Deity, adored under several names
and characters, 93.

Maimonides — believed that the stars are intelligent and rational
ani»mals, which worship and praise their Creator and Lord,
89. N.

Man — a rational creature capable of religion and designed for it,
39, et seq. This his chief pre-eminence above the brutes, 40.
Not If ft at his first creation merely to form a scheme of reli-
gion for himself, 44, et seq. God made discoveries of himself
and of his will to man soon after he was created, 48. This
shewn to be agreeable to reason, and confirmed by the ac-
counts given by Moses, 49, et seq.

Matter — The philosophers generally held it to be uncreated and
eternal, 276, et seq. The absurdity and ill-consequences of this
notion shewn, 279, et seq Those that maintained it called by
Dr. Cudworth imperfect theists, 279. The Stoics ascribed the
origin of evil to the perversity of matter, 279.

Maximus Tyrius^ a Platonist — acknowledges one Supreme God,
but pleads for worshipping an innumerable multitude of deities
and daemons, 334 — apologizes for image worship, oZS — endea-
vours to prove, that men ought not to pray at all, 336. A re-
markable passage from him concerning the universal acknow-
ledgment of one Supreme God among all nations examined,
376.
Miracles — well attested, may be of such a kind as to yield a suf-
ficient proof of the divine mission of the persons by whom
they are performed, and of the divine authority of the laws and
doctrines in attestation of which they are wrought, 18.
Morgan^ Dr.^A remarkable passage from him concerning the

470 INDEX.

weakness of human reason in the present state of mankind,
and the great benefit of Revelation for instructing men in the
knowledge of natural religion, 9. He owns, that immediate
inspiration or revelation from God may communicate a cer-
tainty to the man thus immediately inspired, equal to that
which ariseth from a mathematical demonstration: but will not
allow, that the knowledge of such truth can go any farther as
a matter of divine faith, 17.

Moses — His account of the origin of the human race, and the
primitive state of man, worthy of God and honourable to man-
kind, 49 It appears from it, that (iod made discoveries of him-
self to our first parents, and gave them laws, /6/i/. et seq —
that there was an intercourse between God and man in the
first ages, 52 — and that God was also pleased to manifest his
will on several occasions to particular persons in the arttient
times after the flood, 70. His law eminently distinguished from
those of other untient legislators, in enjoining the worship of
one God, the Creator and Lord of the universe, and of him
only, 155. Moses and the Prophets, as well as Christ and his
Apostles, proceeded upon nobler principles than the Pas^jan
legislators and philosophers, and did not pretend a necessity
for leading the people into wrong notions and practices with
regard to religion and divine worship, 336. The wisdom of
Moses and the excellency of his institutions admired and cele-
brated by the Pagans themselves, 403.

Mysteries^ Pagan — have been mightily extolled as an excellent
expedient for promoting true religion and good morals among
the people, 182, et seq. — they were spread generally through
the nations, 184 — their tendency to raise men to the perfection
of virtue considered, 185, et seq. — originally designed to civil-
ize the people, and to encourage those virtues which are more
immediately useful to society, 187. They were horridly abus-
ed and corrupted, and at length, instead of being a school of
virtue, became a sink of vice, 191, et seq. The errors of poly-
theism not detected in the mysteries, 193, et seq. The history
of the gods was repre??ented in the mysteries, not with an in-
tention to condemn the worship of deified men, but to encou-
rage it, i97. The proofs brought to shew that the doctrine of
the unity was taught in the mysteries, examined, 201, el seq.
There is reason to think that the notion of the Deity taught

INDEX.

471

in the mysteries was not a right and just one, 208 or, if it

were so, it would have been of little use, as it was communi-
cated to a very few, and under the strictest seal of secrecy,
209. The mysteries were insufficient to hinder the bad influ-
ence of the vicious examples of their deities, because they
still retained the poetical mythology, 212. The legislators and
civil magistrates, who instituted and conducted the mysteries,
were the great promoters of polytheism, and therefore did not
intend to subvert it by the mysteries, 213 — their scheme upon
such a supposition would have been strangely absurd and incon-
sistent, 214. The mysteries were designed to increase men*s
veneration for the established religion, and not to expose it to
contempt, 215. They were under the presidency of various
deities, and celebrated to their honour, 216 — if they had been
intended against the popular polytheism, the people would not
have endured them, 218. The Athenians, who were the most
zealous observers of the mysteries, were remarkably addicted
to idolatry, and grew more and more so, 219. The primitive
Christians had a very bad opinion of the mysteries, ibid. vin-
dicated from the censures cast upon them on that account,
221. 223 — yet the names, rites, and discipline of the mysteries
were afterwards transferred into our holy religion, which had a
bad efl'ect, 225.
Mythology, Pai^an — ascribed scandalous actions to their deities,
and especially to Jupiter the chief of them: which had bad
consequences. 120. 161, 162. The philosophers attempted in
vain to turn those fables into allegory, 149. See Poetical theo-
logy.

.Yames — originally appropriated to the true God afterwards at-
tributed to idol deities, 100. Different names, titles, and attri-
butes of God erected into distinct personal divinities, and
worshipped as such, 125.

Mitural Religion — its various acceptions, 2, et seq. Its being
founded in nature, and agreeable to reason, is no proof.ihat
therefore reason alone, without any higher assistance, disco-
vered it in its just extent, 2, 3 — rightly considered it is per-
fectly consistent with the supposition of an extraordinary
divine Revelation, 3, 4 — the pretence that it is naturally and

472 INDEX.

necessarily known to all mankind, contrary to fact and expe-
rience, 6. See Reason.
Noah — the knowledge of the primitive religion easily transmitted
from our first parents to Noah the second father of mankind,
to whom also God made farther discoveries of his will, to be
by him communicated to his descendants, 54.

Oracles — The most eminent philosophers sent the people to the
oracles for instruction in divine matters, 318, 319. They were
silenced soon after our Saviour's appearance, 442.

Origen — believed that the stars are animated; and that they join
with just men in praising God and his only begotten Son, 88.
N. He gives it as his own opinion, and that of the primitive
Christians, that the deities of the Pagan religion and the ob-
jects of the popular worship were daemons, 439. N.

Orpheus — Verses ascribed to him describe the sun by the most
glorious and divine epithets, and attribute to him the genera-
tion and government of all things, 94. His hymn relating to
the mysteries, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, justly suspect-
ed, 205. It is uncertain whether any of the verses that go under
his name can be depended on as his, 206. He is affirmed by
Celsus to have been undoubtedly inspired by a holy spirit; but
charged by Origen with having written more impious fables
concerning the gods than Homer himself, 234.

Ovid — His account of the creation of the world derived from an-
tient tradition, and in several respects agreeable to that of
Moses, 73. He supposes the world to have been made by God,
but was at a loss which of the gods to ascribe it to, ibid, et 207.

Pagans. See Heathens.

Pardoning niercy — discovered to our first parents immediately
after the fall, and the notion of it still continued, and was never
entirely lost among mankind, 51.

Pausanius — his judicious observation, that events which really
happen were rendered incredible by the fictions that were su-
peradded to them, 102.

Persians — according to Dr. Hyde's account, were adorers of the
one true God from the most antient times, having learned

INDEX. 473

Iheir religion from Shem and Elam, 67. They had among them
from times immemorial the history of ihe creation of the world,
72— fell early into the worship of the heavenly bodies, yet still
retained the knowledge and worship of the one Supreme God,
89. Their religion said by ihe oriental writers to have been
reformed by Abraham, and afterwards by Zoroaster, 156. N.
See Zoroaster.
Peru, the most antient inhabitants of— acknowledged one Su-
preme God; but seldom erected temples or offered sacrifices
to him, 83. The modern Peruvians paid their chief devotions
to the sun. 95.
Phoenicians — the first physici or natural philosophers among
them looked upon the sun, moon, stars, and elements to be
the only gods, 86.
Philosofihers, Pagan — did not derive their religious and moral
principles solely and entirely from the disquisitions of their
own reason, nor did the best of them assume this to them-
selves, but ascribed a great deal to antient tradition, which.
was supposed to be of divine original, 10 59. They bestowed
high encomiums on philosophy, as the gift of the gods, and
defined it to be the knowledge of things divine and human,
227. Notwithstanding their glorious pretences, they were not
well fitted to lead the people into right notions in matters of
religion, or to reclaim them from their superstitions and idol-
atries: this is shewn from several considerations, 229, et seq.
They had little influence for want of a proper authority to en-
force their instructions, 232. The most eminent of them in-
volved their sentiments, especially in religious matters, in
great obscurity, and carefully concealed them from the peo-
ple, 235, et seq. Some of them denied all certainty and evi-
dence, and endeavoured to subvert the main principles of all
religion, 241. The most celebrated among them were under
great darkness and uncertainty in matters of the highest
consequence, 243, et seq. The philosophers were the great
corrupters of the antient tradition concerning the one true
God, and the creation of the world, 249. The strange confu-
sion and diversity of sentiments among them with regard to
the Deity shewn from Cicero's book de Natura Deorum, 247.
The antient philosophers divided into two main ranks. Some of
them excluded a divine mind and intelligence from the forma-
Vol. I. SO

474 INDEX.

tion of the universe, 249. Others ascribed it to a most wise and
powerful mind, 2 55 — yet these were defective in what relates
to the knowledt^e and worship of the one true God, and en-
couraged polytheism, ibid, et seq. Few, if any of them, ac-
knowlede:ed God to be in a proper sense the Creator of the
world, 276, et seq. They held the eternity of matter, ibid, et
278 — and after Aristotle, they generally held the eternity of
the world both as to matter and form, 282. The latter Plato-
nists and Pythagoreans taught that the world proceeded eter-
nally from God in a way of emanation, which naturally led to
the Spinosan scheme, 281. 28 3. Many of the philosophers
taught that God is the soul of the world, or that the whole
animated system of the world is God, 283, et seq. This was
the doctrine of the antient Egyptians, 286 — of Varro, 287—
of the Bramins, ibid. — and especially of the Stoics, 288, et seq.
The pernicious consequences of this notion shewn, 292, et
seq. It was used to justify the Heathen polytheism in worship-
ping the several things of nature, and parts of the world, as
gods, or parts of God, ibid. The Pagan philosophy was so
managed as to lay a foundation for their polytheism and idola-
try, 294- The greatest and best of ihe Heathen philosophers,
in their most serious discourses, spoke of a plurality of gods,
whom they recommended to the adoration of the people, 298,
et seq. When they set themselves to prove the being of a God,
and a Providence, they proceeded on the supposition of a plu-
rality of gods, 300, et seq. They referred the people for in-
struction in religious matters to the priests and to the oracles,
318. It was a general maxim among them, that every man
ought to conform to the religion of his country, 322. When
they took upon them the character of legislators, polytheism,
and not the worship of the one true God, was the religion they
endeavoured to establish, S25, et seq. They employed their
learning and abilities to defend the worship of a plurality of
deities, and pretended this was an honour to the Supreme,
333. Instead of diminishing the number of deities, they added
a multitude of phantastic and metaphysical deities to the po-
pular ones, 335. N. They justified the worship of images,
335 — and undertook to colour over the absurdest part of the
Pagan theology, by allegorizing the most indecent fables, 336.
They apologized even for the Egyptian animal worship, which

INDEX. 475

many of the other Pagans ridiculed, 338. Some of the most
refined philosophers were ai^ainst all external worship of ihe
Supreme God, 340. Their notions of Providence considered.
See Providence. They made new efforis, after Christianity ap-
peared, to support the credit of declinin^^ Paganism, 428. For
this purpose they made alterations in their philosophy, and
borrowed several things from the Holy Scriptures, but still en-
deavoured to uphold the Heathen polytheism, 429. The best of
the philosoj^hers acknowle'Jged their own darkness, and were
sensible of the need they stood in of a Divine Rt:velation and
instruction, 430, et seq. Some of them pretended to extraor-
dinary communications with the gods, but they and their pre-
tences fell into contempt, 434. See also, 234.

Physiology ^ Pagan — a source of polytheism, 129. The things of
nature, and parts of the universe, were turned into allegorical
persons, and regarded as so many distinct divinities, ibid.

Plato- — observes, that man, without education and culture,
would be the wildest of all animals, 7. A remarkable passage
from him concerning the state of men after the flood, 56 He
travelled into Egypt and the Easternx^countries lor his im-
provement, and Irom thence seems to have borrowed some of
his sublimest notions, 60. He frequently talks of antient and

venerable traditions supposed to be of divine original, ibid

charges the opinion of the stars being inanimate bodies
as leading to atheism, 90. He frequently prescribes the wor-
ship of the stars, which seem to be the divinities he princi-
pally recommends to the people, ibid. See also 326 Finds
fault with the fables of Homer and Hesiod concerning the
gods, 142 — yet dates not entirely reject the fables of the
poets and niythologi>ts, 147 — represents the poets as divinely
inspired, and that it is God that speaks by them, 148 — allows
drunkenness at the feasts of Bacchus, but not at other tiines,
169. 'Ihere is great obscurity in many of his doctrines and
notions, and, by his own account, few are able to penetrate into
his real sentiments, 237, et seq. He believed in one Supreme
God, but did not think it safe or proper to publish him to the
vulgar, 237. See also 267. He frequently acknowledges the
darkness of the human mind in divine things, 244. He held
two principles of things, God and matter, $76. In disputing
against the atheists, he asserts the existence and providence

476 INDEX.

of the gods, 300. Tn his books of Laws he does not recommend
the worship of the one true God to the people, but of a plu-
rality of deities, 325, et seq. He had an high opinion of the
oracles as the best and only guides in matters of religion and
divine worship, 321 323. N The first and hghest god, ac-
cording to him, was not concerned in the creation, nor is so
in the government of the world, 340. N. The account he gives
of the Supreme Unity different from the idea given us of God
in the Holy Scriptures, 341. N. A passage of his examined, in
"which he represents it as the practice of every good and pru-
dent man to invoke God in every undertaking, 346, et seq

Pliny the Elder — held the world to be God, immense, eternal,
neither generated nor to be destroyed, 91 — disapproved the
turning human qualities and accidents, virtues ana vices, into
deities, 133. He observes that mortals crumbled the deity into
parts, and worshipped that in God which they themselves
stood most in need of, 135. A remarkable passage from him
concerning fortune as a deity universally invoked, 348 He
thinks it ridiculous to suppose that the Supreme God takes
any care of human affairs; and affirms that this would un-
doubtedly be a pollution to him, 353.

Pliny the Younger — his testimony to the virtue and constancy of
the primitive Christians, 444.

Plotinus — and the latter Platonists and Pythagoreans, after Chris-
tianity appeared, continued to plead for the divinity and wor-
ship of the sun and stars, 92. He taught that the world is a
god, and that the sun and other stars are gods, as being ani-
mated by a divine soul, 295 — and pretended that the worship-
ping many gods is an honour done to the Supreme, 333. What
he says of the Platonic first principle obscure and unintelligi-
ble, 340. N.

Pluche^ Abbe de — His account of the original of the Pagan dei-
ties and mythology grounded on sufficient evidence, 102.

Plutarch — His sentiments of the necessity of education and in-
struction, 7 — gives it as the universal opinion of the Pagans
in his time that the stars are gods, and affirms that all men
"worshipped them as such, 91— passes a severe censure on
Euhemerus, and those who asserted that the gods vulgarly
worshipped had once been men: which yet cannot reasonably
be denied, 105. 196— blames those who gave the name of gods

INDEX. 477

to pictures and ima?:es, and to things insensible and inanimate,
which the i^ods have provided for the use of nnankind, 122, et
seq,— acknowledges ihut many of the rites in use among the
Pagans were designed to placate and gratify evil daemons,
136. 440 His book of Isis and Osiris designed as an apology
for the Pagan polytheism, 201. 387. He held two eternal prin-
ciples, the one good, the other evil, and affirms, that this was
the doctrine of the antients, and taught by the most celebrated
philosophers, 275. He asserts the eternity of matter, 277 —
puts the doctrine of Providence on the same footing with that
of the stars being animated, 359 — seems to hold with Euri-
pides, that God concerns himself with great matters, and
leaves the smaller to fortune, 361. A passage from him con-
cerning the universal consent of nations in acknowledging and
worshipping one God ufider different names, considered, 386,
et seq. The strange and unjvist representations he makes of
the Jews, and their rites, 409. N — charges it as an impious
attempt to make the least alteration in the religion and wor-
ship derived from their ancestors, and established by the laws,
44 i . N.
Pocts^ Heathen — kept up the antient tradition of one Supreme
God; but corrupted it by confounding him with their Jupiter,
the chief of their idol deities, of whon they made such inde-
cent representations, 78, et seq. They were the prophets and
chief instructors of the people, 113. 145, 146 — looked upon
even by Socrates and*Plalo as divinely inspired, 149 — blamed
by Dr. Cud worth for personating and deifying the inanimate
parts of the world and things of nature, which produced a vast
number of gods and goddesses, 149. N. But this is also justly
chargeable on the philosophers, ibid. See also 293. Both the
poets and philosophers made the Pagan theology look too
aristocratically, 315.
Poetical or Fabulous Theology — disapproved by several of the
wiser Pagans, 143, et seq — yet it was wrought into the popu-
lar religion, and lay at the foundation of most of their sacred
rites, 145. There was a close connection between the poetical
and civil theology of the Pagans, 158, et seq.
Polytheism^ Pagan — The most plausible apology for it is, that
the multitude of their deities was only the worship of the one
true God under different names and manifestations. This pre-

478 INDEX.

tence examined, and shewn to be insufficient, 120, et seq. Dr.
Cudworth calls this the recondite theoloi^y of the Pagans; and
says, that probably the vulgar did not understand it, 125. Poly-
theism was the esiablished religion and worship of all the Pa-
gan nations, 155. Remarkable difTerence between them and
the Jews in this respect, 155, et 313. N. See Idolatry.

Por/ihyry — His account of evil daemons, 136 — justifies the wor-
ship of them, 138 — says, that Serapis, the great Egyptian
deity, was the prince of evil daemons, 138 — gives a high enco-
mium of the Egyp ian priests, and attributes their worshipping
animals to their extraordinary wisdom and divine knowledge,
339 — seems to be against rendermg an exiernal worship to
the highest God of all, 342 — complains, that from the lime
that Jesus began to be worshipped, the gods had withdrawn
their converse from men, 443. N.

Potter^ Dr. His Antiquities of Greece referred to for an account
of the Grecian rites and festivals, 145. 168, et seq.

Prayer^ the duty of — probably a part of the primitive religion
derived from the first parents of mankind, 25. 365. The things
the Gentiles prayed for were chiefly ihe commodities of this
world, and not blessings of a spiritual nature, 349. The duty of
prayer is nearly connected with the belief of a Divine Provi-
dence, 354 — generally practised among the Pagans, but ad-
dressed to a multiplicity of deities, 367. Some of the philoso-
phers were only for praying for good thmgs in general, but
not for any thing in particular: others were only for mental
but not vocal prayer: others were against praying at all; and
so are some of our modern Deists, ibid. The Scripture gives
great encouragement to prayer, and excellent directions for
the right performance of that duty, 368.

Promise^ original — made to our first parents immediately after
the fall, a foundation for their hope, 33.

Protihecies — extraordinatry attestations given to our Saviour by a
by a series of illustrious prophecies, delivered at sundry times
and in divers manners, for many ages before his actual mani-
festation in the flesh, 437.

Providence — The belief of it of vast importance to the cause of
virtue in the world, 343. It was part of the primitive religion
derived by a most antient tradition from the first ages, 344.
Some notion of it generally obtained among the vulgar Pa-

INDEX. 479

gans; but they supposed Providelice to be parcelled out among
a multiplicity ot deities, 345. The notions they entertained of
Divine Providence were in several respects wrong and defec-
tive, 347, et seq. Many of the philosophers ^and of the learned
and polite Pagans denied a Providence, 351, et seq. Some of
those that seemed to own a Divine Providence were for con-
fining it to heaven and heavenly things, 354. Others supposed
it to extend to the ear h and mankind, but asserted only a gene-
ral Providence, not extending to the individuals of the human
race, or if to individuals, only to persons of special worth and
eminence, and affairs of great importance, 356. Many celebrat-
ed philosophers thought that the highest God did not take i.ny
care of men, or their concernments, as being below his notice,
and that he committed them wholly to inferior deities, 356.
The philosophers vei y confused in their notions with regard
to Divine Providence, 362. Some of them supposed, that fate
or necessity governs all things; others divided the ordering of
events between God or Providence, fate and fo: tune, and hu-
man art and skill, 363. Divine Revelation of signal use for in-
structing men to form just and worthy notions of Providence,
364. Nohle idea given of it in the Sacred Writings, 365.

Publicann^ or Roman knights — not willing that the lands conse-
crated in Greece to the gods should be exempted from taxes;
under pretence that those ought not to be reckoned among the
immortal gods who had once been men, 105. N.

Fuffendorff — supposes the chief heads of natural religion and law
to have been originally communicated by Divine Revelation to
the first parents of mankind, 4.

Pythagoras — involved his doctrine in great obscurity under num-
bers and symbols, which were explained only to his disciples
after long preparation, and carefully concealed from the peo-
ple, 236. He held human souls to be discerped portions of the
Divine Essence, 258 — supposed by Dr. Sykes to have learned
the doctrine of the unity from the Egyptian priests, but not
■without great difficulty, 300.

Ramsey^ Chevalier de — His apology for the Egyptian idolatry,
142. The parallel he draws between the. corruption of the
Pagan and Christian festivals considered, 176 — pretends, that

480 INDEX.

the Hebrews as well as Pagans spoke of a plurality of gods,
313. N. — and that the polytheism of the Heathens was only
nominal, 386, 387. N.

Reason — Many tj^ings are agreeable to reason when made known,
which yet it wouici not have discovered if left to itself without
assistance, 2. 4. It is a difficult question, and of little use, how
far reason may possibly carry us in religion by its own unas-
sisted force, 7. We are not apt to judge of the ordinary abili-
ties of human reason in matters of religion by the attainments
of a few extraordinary persons, 8. The surest way of judg-
ing of what may be expected from human reason in the pre-
sent state of mankind is from fact and experience, especially
in those ages and nations which had not the advantage of Di-
vine Revelation, 10. Systems of natural religion drawn up in
Christian countries cannot properly be brought in proof of the
force of unassisted reason in matters of religion, 10.

Religion — supposes an intercourse between God and man, 1 —
distributed into natural and revealed: these are not contrary
to one another, and yet not entirely the same; but there is a
perfect harmony between them, ibid Man not left at his first
creation merely to his own unassisted reason, but had the chief
heads of religion communicated to him by Divine Revelation,
61. The first reliction of mankind not idolatry, but the worship
of the one true God, 62, et seq. Traces of an antient universal
religion in the rites and customs of many nations, 71.

Religion^ natural — 2, et seq. See JVatural.

Religion^ revealed — that which was originally communicated to
man by Revelation from God, 13, et seq.

Revelation — not an immediate infallible inspiration of every par-
ticular person of the human race, which is contrary to evi-
dent fact and experience: but it is to be understood of God's
making an extraordinary discovery of himself, or of his will,
to some particular person or persons, to be by them commu-
nicated to others in his name, 13, 14. The possibility of such a
Revelation shewn, 14, et seq. God can give those to whom the
Revelation is originally and immediately made, a full and cer-
tain assurance of its being a Divine Revelation, 15. He can
also commission«te them to communicate it to others, and can
furnish them with sufficient credentials of their divine mis-
sion, to shew that what they deliver in his name is a true Re-

INDEX. 4gl

velation from God, 17, et seq. This may be transmitted to
those who live in succeedirg at^res, with such evidence as to
lay them under an obligaiion to receive and submit to it as of
divine authority, 20. The usefulness and advantage of divine
Revelation, and the great need there is of it in the present
state of mankind, shewn from several considerations, 23, 24,
et seq. It has been the general sense of mankind in all at^es
and nations, that God hath made revebtions of bis will, 31.
This notion has been often abused by enthusiasts and impos-
tors; but this is no just argument against the possibility or
expediency of Divine Revelation, 32. A true Revelation from
God, if duly attended to, is the best security against the mis-
chiefs arising from falsely pretended ones, 33. Since Revela-
tion is both possible and useful, it is not probable that God
left all men at all times without such a valuable help, 34. A
brief scheme of the order and design of the principal revela-
tions which God hath given to mankind, 35. They give mutual
life and support to one another, 36. Nothing less than an ex-
traordinary Revelation was sufficient, as things were circum-
stanced, to recover the Pagan nations from theii- idolatry and
polytheism, to the right knowledge and worsiiip of the one
true God, 425, et seq.
Revelation^ Christian. See Christian.

Rites — cruel and impure, of the Heathen worship, 163, et seq.
Romans, antient, /lublic religion of- — highly commended by Dyo-
nysius Halicarnasseus and Cicero, 154, 155 — prescribed the
Avorship of many gods, 155. It was made up partly of the phy-
sical and partly of the poetical theology, 158. Scenical games
and plays, in which the vicious actions of their gods were
represented, were taken into their public religion, 159. It
grew more corrupt in the latter times of their state, when
learning and philosophy had made a progress among them,
than it had been in the rude and more illiterate ages, 421,
et seq.

Sacrifice — a rite of religion of the greatest antiquity, and origi-
nally of divine appointment, 71.

Sacrifices, Awmaw— iantiently of general extent among the Pagans,
Vol. II. 3 P

482 INDEX.

and continued long even among the most civilized nations,

163, et seq.
Scrifiture^ Holy — The representation there made of the corrupt
and miserable state of the Heatnen world exactly just dud
agreeable to fact, 371, et seq Tlie Scripture is the great 'ule
of faith and practice, and coniams the original records of our
holy religion, 449 A steady adherence to it is 'he best nieans
for preserving the Christian religion in its purity, and for re-
forming it when corrupted, ibid. The light it aflbrds calls for
our highest thankfulness, 450.
Seneca — His account of Jupiter Capitolinus considered, 114-—
pretenns, that all the different Heathen deities were one God
with different names and powers, 120. In his treatise of Su-
perstitiijn he passes a severe censure on the civil theology and
public religion of the Romans, yet says, it was what a wise
man ought to conform to in obedience to the laws, 162 — as-
serts, that the world is God, and that we are all of us parts
and members of the Divinity, 290 — supposes matter to be an
obstrucion to the Deity in his opeiations, so that he could
not make things so well as he would, 2^0. He seems to think,
that Provitlence seldom concerns itself about individuals, 362.
He discovers a strong prejudice against the Jews; but owns,
that there were many who imitated their religion and rites,
406.
Seventh day — was for a long time distinguished among the na-
tions, 71. A particular regard was had to the number seven as
sacred, ibid. 72. The numbering by weeks consisting of seven
days was in use from the remotest antiquity, especially among
the Eastern nations, and was probably derived originally from
the histoiy of the creation, 73.
Shajtesbury^ Rarl of- — observes, that man is born not only to vir-
tue, but to religion and piety, 42.
Socrates — declined being initiated in the mysteries, 18Q—
averse to disquisitions into the physical nature and causes of
things, 237. 263 — seems to have believed one Supreme God,
yet almost always speaks of the gods in the plural, to whom
he ascribes the forntiation of things, and the blessings of Pro-
vidence, atid to whom divine worship is to be paid, 264, et
seq. et 299. He referred the people to the oracles in matters
of religion, and recommended divination, 318— was for every

INDEX. 48a

man's worshipping the gods according to the laws of his coun-
try, 319. It is a mistake, that he endeavoured to draw the peo-
ple off from the public religion, and the established polythe-
ism, 320.

Sophocles — a remarkable passage from him concerning the one
God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and against the Heathen
worship ot images, 381. N.

Soul, human — held by many of the philosophers, especially the
Pythagoreans and Stoics, to be a discerped part of the Divine
Essence, 259 290.

Stiifio, the /I hilofio/ihe7''— 'Ceiisurad by the Areopagus, and ordered
to depart the city of A.thens, for saying thai the statue of Mi-
nerva, made by Phidias, was not a god, 129.

Stoics — retained the fables of the poeiical mythology, but gave
physical and allegorical interpretations of them, 149. Many of
their explications iorced and unnatural, ibid. 125. They held
that the world is God, and that particular souls are parts of
the universal soul of the world, and visible corporeal things
parts of his body, 288, 289. They filled the earth, air, and sea
with gods; and the unity of God which they professed really-
included a multipdcity of deities, 294. They were strenuous
asserters of Divine Providence; but for the most part supposed
it not to extend to individuals, except to some persons of emi-
nence, and affairs of importaivce, 359.

Strabo — His account of the impurities of the Heathen religion,
171, et seq.

Sun — worshipped by the Zabians as the chief God, 89 — called by
the Phoenicians the only Lord of heaven, ibid Peculiar titles
and attributes of the one true God ascribed to it, 93 — accord-
ing to Macrobius, was the one universal i »eity adored under
several names and characters, ibid. — regarded by many of the
Egyptians as the Demiurgus or Maker of the world, 209. 252.

Sykes^ Dr. — asserts, that the doctrine of the unity and perfec-
tions of CioU was the universal doctrine of the Pagans, and that
it was derived to them not from Revelation or Tradition, but
from the mere unassisted light of nature and reason, 271. The
proofs he brings for this shewn to be insufficient, ibid, et 309.
N. He says, the Greek philosophers travelled into Egypt to
get at the knowledge of the unity, 272. And though he repre-
sents is as acknowledged by the Heathens in general, yet it

484 INDEX.

appears from his own account, that this doctrine was known
to few, 390- He will not allow, that the Greeks learned any-
thing in relii^ion from the Jews or their Scriptures, though he
owns they did from other Eastern nations, 399, et seq.N. He
grants, that, as things were circumstanced, a Divine Revela-
tion was necessary to recover the Heathens from their idola-
tries and corruptions in religion, 428. N.
Syjnbols — different ol the Deity, turned into gods, and worship-
ped as such, 128.

Tacitus — looks upon it as uncertain, whether ail things are go-
verned by fate and immutable necessity, or by chance; and
says, many were persuaded that the gods take no care at all
of men, or any of the events relating to them, 353. His false
and contradictory accounts of the Jews, 409. N. His testimony
concerning the multitude of Christians at Rome in the reign
of Nero, and the cruel torments to which they were exposed,
444.

Tertullian — appeals to the consciences of the Pagans themselves,
and to their most authentic monuments, that all their gods
had once been men, 124. N. — represents the Romans as more
corrupt in religion in the latter times of their state, than their
ancestors had been, 432.

Thales — His notion of God and the origin of things considered,
256, et seq.

Thfogony^ Fa^an. See Cosmogony.

Theology^ Pagan — distributed by Varro and others into three
different kinds, the poetical or fabulous, the physical or philo-
sophical, and the civil or popular, 143.

Theology y fioetical. See Poetical.

Theology, physical or fihilosofihical^ 227-— in the opinion of Scae-
vola and V'ano not very proper for the people of the state
2 -;0, It was had in no great esteem by the magistrates and po-
liiicJuns, ibid, et 331.

Theology^ civil — as established by the Roman laws, is said by
Sc2evola and Varro to have been the theology of the vulgar,
but not the true, 120. The civil theology according to Varro's
account of ii, v/as tfiat which was taught and adminislered by
the priests, and appointed by the state, 153. It is observed by

INDEX. 485

Dr. Cudworth, that there was a mixture of the mythical or
fabulous theology to.treiher with the natural, almost every
Avhere, to make up the civil theolos^y of the Pagans, 158. The
close connection between the Roman civil theology and the
poetical shewn, ibid, et seq.

TindaU Dr. — His main principle, that the religion and law of
nature is naturally and necessarily known to all men even
wihout instruction, contrary to fact and experience, 5, 6.

Tradition — Peculiar advantages for transmitting the knowledge
of religion by tradition in the earliest ages, 52. Tradi ion of
religion, laws, and sciences, originally derived from the East-
ern parts, where mankind were first settled after the flood, 57.
The wisdom of the East consisted much in teaching and deli-
vering the antient traditions; and this was the original way of
philosophizing among the Greeks themselves, ibid. 58. There
were traditions from the first ages, and which spread generally
among the nations, concerning the creation of the world out of
a chaos, and the dissolution of it by fire, 58. Traditionary sto-
ries of the aniient patriarchs and Jewish heroes mixed with
the Pagan mythology, 101. The most eminent Greek philoso-
phers got much of their knowledge by tradition, 272.

FarrOi the most learned of the Romans — endeavours to give
physical and allegorical explications of Jupiter, Juno, and the
other Pagan deities, 1 18. See also 212. He passes a severe cen-
sure on the poetical or fabulous, 142 — says the people were
inclined to follow the poets rather than the philosophers, in
what related to the gods, 147 — gives a strange account of the
impurities and obscenities used at the festivals of Bacchus in
some parts of Italy, 174. N. He thought the public religion
wanted to be reformed, yet was for upliolding it by the civil
authority, and retaining the names and history of the gods, as
delivered by their ancestors, 179. The philosophical theology
was in his opinion only fit for disputations in the schools, but
not proper to be taught openly among the people, 230. He
held that God is the soul of the world, and that the world itself
is God 286 — and he calls the soul of the world and its parts
the true gods, 293. He speaks with respect of the Jews as
worshipping God in a right manner, and that they worshipped

486 INDEX.

the highest God, which he calls Jupiter, without images, 404.
He observes, that the antient Homans for 170 years had no
images in their temples, and thinks religion would do better
without them, 420.

Unity of God'^'l he philosophers were more explicit in their ac-
knovvledgmenis of the un'ty, and some other impoitant articles
of religion, af'erthe appearance of Christianity, than they had
been before, 123. 385. No sufficient proof that the doctrine of
the unitv was taught in the mysteries, 199. See also 389. The
Greek philosophers are said to have travelled into Egypt to
get at the knowledge of the unity, 272. The pretence that this
was the universal doctrine of the Pagan world, and that all na-
tions worshipped the one true God under different names and
titles, examined, 384, et seq.

Voltaire^ Moris de — represents the Pagan religion as consisting
only of morality and festivals, or times of rejoicing, 175—
praises those of the Learned Sect, in China for leaving the
gross superstitions to the people, and feeding the magistrates
with a purer substance, 254. N. And yet those they call the
learned Chinese are generally atheists, ibid. See Chinese,

jyor/rf— The Egyptians and most of the learned Heathens held
the whole animated system of the world to be God, 286, et
seq. 392. The Pagans in general were in one sense or other
world-worshippers, 294, 295.

IVomhip — The proper manner of worshipping God best known
in Divine Revelation, 26. See also 433. Some nations that
seemed to acknowledge one Supreme God rendered him no
worship at all, 81. Ihe worship of the one true God, and of
him only, a fundamental principle of the Jewish constitution,
155. 396. Some of the most refined philosophers were against
any external worship of the highest God, 340, 341.

Xenofihon — Plato blamed by him for quitting the simple philoso-
phy of Socrates, and euibracmg the portentous wisdom of Py-
thagoras and the Egyptians, 237.

INDEX.

487

Zabians—he\6 the stars to be deities, but the sun to be the chief
god, 88— worshipped evil beings, but especially Sammaei, the
principal of the evil daemons, 139. They asserted the eiernity
of the world, 283.

Zaleucus, the Locrian law-giver — A remarkable passage from
the preface to his laws, 76. 298.

Zivi — among the Greeks, was at first, according to Dr. Cud-
wonh, the name of a Hero, and aftei-wards applied to the Su-
preme God, 1 12. See Jupiter.

Zoroaster — supposed by many to have lived in the most antient
patriarchal times, and therefore might have been acquainted
with the primitive religion derived from Adam and Noah, 68.
N. According to Dr. Hyde, and the Oriental writers, he lived
in the reign of Darius Hystaspes, was a disciple of one of the
Jewish prophets, and incorporated many of the Mosaicai rites
into his own religion, idid.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries

1 1012 01247 2777

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

See other formats